It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Andrew Napolitano: Mrs. Clinton’s folks are preparing for the worst.

page: 9
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good.

Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Says someone who never handled classified info.


I see that is the new teenage-like tactic to say "says someone" or "says the person".

Has intelligent devolved to teenage rhetoric?

If you have a point you believe is profound, at least put some effort in to it.

Otherwise, go over to the TeenDisney forums. They talk like that.

No tactics here
Have you held a clearance?
The laws that deal with such are not nonsense.


Why is my personal opinion dependent upon my having held a clearance? We have had testimony of another individual on this site that claims to have had a clearance and they have backtracked on many major points.

You wish to inform yourself with anecdotal evidence?

That's a logical fallacy. An argument from authority.




posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: butcherguy
Over in Pakistan, they set women on fire for being an unsatisfactory wife.
They'd probably drop her in a volcano.


Poor volcano...


Her ass would clog the volcano and snuff it out, that or her ugly mug...no wait...her pantsuit is flame retardant.....



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good.

Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Says someone who never handled classified info.


I see that is the new teenage-like tactic to say "says someone" or "says the person".

Has intelligent devolved to teenage rhetoric?

If you have a point you believe is profound, at least put some effort in to it.

Otherwise, go over to the TeenDisney forums. They talk like that.

No tactics here
Have you held a clearance?
The laws that deal with such are not nonsense.


Why is my personal opinion dependent upon my having held a clearance? We have had testimony of another individual on this site that claims to have had a clearance and they have backtracked on many major points.

You wish to inform yourself with anecdotal evidence?

That's a logical fallacy. An argument from authority.

Have you held a clearance?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Not falling in to that trap.

Any argument that you could make from that piece of information is a logical fallacy. It has no place in a debate because anecdotal evidence and experience may not apply to specific situations.

What you are doing is a no-no even in high school debate classes.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good.

Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Says someone who never handled classified info.


I see that is the new teenage-like tactic to say "says someone" or "says the person".

Has intelligent devolved to teenage rhetoric?

If you have a point you believe is profound, at least put some effort in to it.

Otherwise, go over to the TeenDisney forums. They talk like that.

No tactics here
Have you held a clearance?
The laws that deal with such are not nonsense.


Why is my personal opinion dependent upon my having held a clearance? We have had testimony of another individual on this site that claims to have had a clearance and they have backtracked on many major points.

You wish to inform yourself with anecdotal evidence?

That's a logical fallacy. An argument from authority.


Bub, there's stuff i cannot disclose even to my wife until at least 2025 when the clause is up for either review or reclassification.

When you work around sensitive info that the public at large is not supposed to be privy to, its a big deal. And Uncle Sammy takes his secrets very very seriously. The amount of trouble one would be in for spilling them beans either through carelessness, or being just a plain ole blabber mouth would be large.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BooCrackers

Case and point. Anecdotal evidence does not belong in a debate because it only serves to confirm bias'. You cannot prove what you claim and you could be lying. Therefore, it has no purpose.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
See here is the disconnect
You have no idea the burden a clearance carries or you would not refer to any of this as "nonsense".
Hense the question you will not answer
Have you held a clearance?
Ever know someone who got a DUI and lost a clearance?
Ever know someone who got in credit trouble and lost a clearance?
For all those people who had the honor to maintain a clearance this will never be nonsense as you put it.

So have you held a clearance?



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
See here is the disconnect
You have no idea the burden a clearance carries or you would not refer to any of this as "nonsense".
Hense the question you will not answer
Have you held a clearance?
Ever know someone who got a DUI and lost a clearance?
Ever know someone who got in credit trouble and lost a clearance?
For all those people who had the honor to maintain a clearance this will never be nonsense as you put it.

So have you held a clearance?


All anecdotal. A logical fallacy. It has no place in a debate.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
See here is the disconnect
You have no idea the burden a clearance carries or you would not refer to any of this as "nonsense".
Hense the question you will not answer
Have you held a clearance?
Ever know someone who got a DUI and lost a clearance?
Ever know someone who got in credit trouble and lost a clearance?
For all those people who had the honor to maintain a clearance this will never be nonsense as you put it.

So have you held a clearance?


All anecdotal. A logical fallacy. It has no place in a debate.

Debate or no you have proven you are disengenous and have no respect for rule of law or service.

Now you may return to the Disney children's table, they are serving icecream soon you will enjoy it, and the adults will be able to continue this discussion.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

This is a debate. What you ask for is illogical and cannot provide any provable substance, considering this discussion is over the internet. Also, you are trying to bait me in to providing an answer to a question that is loaded, regardless of the answer.

That tactic itself is disingenuous in nature.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

This is a debate. What you ask for is illogical and cannot provide any provable substance, considering this discussion is over the internet. Also, you are trying to bait me in to providing an answer to a question that is loaded, regardless of the answer.

That tactic itself is disingenuous in nature.

I'm not here to debate anything
On your way to the kiddie table notice the debate forum, they have debates there
I asked a simple question
You won't answer
You called this a nonsense issue and it is not
You disrespect the service of those who had the honor to maintain a clearance by referring to this as nonsence



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



You disrespect the service of those who had the honor to maintain a clearance by referring to this as nonsence


So now you use another logical fallacy, appealing to emotion, in order to validate your point.

You're not doing so well. Do you understand what logical fallacies are?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
The only thing validated is you have no idea about what you post
That and you have no respect



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



That and you have no respect


Respect is earned, not given. You want to come to the adult table and debate adults topics, you better learn the basics of logical debate.

Otherwise, well, the ice cream is tasty, kiddo.




posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

Good.

Like I said. That is the real issue and this classification nonsense is just that, nonsense.


I agree to an extent about focus but I do not agree that classification and state secrets being exposed are non sense. That should be investigated as the foundation issues should.

National Security is a serious matter and that point is driven home by the recent comments by Russia about releasing the emails they got when they accessed Clintons personal non-secure server.

If state secrets were exposed because their was public corruption involving the Clinton foundation then the situation is worse as it shows her concern is centered around herself and her country is not a concern.

Also -
Clinton Foundation rejects allegations it aided Clinton friends


(CNN)The Clinton Foundation is denying a Wall Street Journal report that alleged the organization steered money to a for-profit company partly owned by Clinton friends and Democratic donors.
Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian insisted Thursday that "absolutely" no laws were broken despite the Wall Street Journal's suggestion that the foundation might have violated a federal law that tax-exempt non-profit organizations must act in the public interest and not in any private interest.
The Clinton Foundation set up a $2 million commitment in September 2010 that benefited Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., according to the Journal. Energy Pioneer Solutions helps insulate homes to make them more energy-efficient and reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Julie Tauber McMahon, a close friend of former President Bill Clinton, owns a 29% stake in the company. Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias and Democratic operative Mark Wiener each own 5%, according to The Wall Street Journal.
"President Clinton has established many friendships and professional connections throughout his career in public service. It is not surprising that many of the same people who have worked with him to make a difference and improve the world would continue their (work) through CGI," Minassian, the foundation's spokesman, said in a statement to CNN.

Minassian further accused the Journal of recycling "tabloid gossip" and said the article "ignored the facts about CGI's model, President Clinton and CGI's commitment to combating climate change, and how impact investment works."
"Many for-profit companies are addressing climate change through CGI and helping reduce dependency on fossil fuels," he added.

The report comes as Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, continues to swat away allegations of impropriety related to the Clinton Foundation and her use of emails during her time as secretary of state.

edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody



That and you have no respect


Respect is earned, not given. You want to come to the adult table and debate adults topics, you better learn the basics of logical debate.

Otherwise, well, the ice cream is tasty, kiddo.


You really are daft
There is a debate forum and this is not it
The five magic words that bring you to a screeching halt
Have you held a clearance?
You are the guy with the flat tire telling the mechanic you know it has to be the engine



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

And you continue to ask for anecdotal evidence. There is a debate forum in which I can participate, but that does not alleviate yourself from approaching this topic logically.

The debate forum aspect is an excuse. What you are saying is that I should take my approach to another forum because you can't handle what is being thrown at you.

In other words, a man with a flat tire problem that refuses to use a tire iron, because it makes too much sense.







posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The purpose for asking about holding a clearance I think to an extent is valid. Its easy enough to read about classifications and security levels but if you have never held one its difficult to understand where they are coming from. You take an oath to protect information that has national / international repercussions. Taking an Oath is an important action and violating that oath is one of the worse things a person can do.

Especially if that oath violation places peoples lives in danger. Considering 22 emails were SCI there were / are lives at risk.

If a person cannot be trusted to uphold an oath they took voluntarily then that person is no longer trustworthy to be in a position where peoples lives depend on them. I have taken an Oath for my job and I take it seriously and I have no sympathy for those who took the same oath and then violated that oath.

It is an important issue and should be investigated and prosecuted. Dismissing it is not an option and I can understand where people are coming from when you suggest its essentially a non issue.

This lady wants to be President. If she violated her oath and placed peoples lives in danger over her foundation then she has no business occupying the Presidency, let alone ANY position that deals with other peoples lives. The fact she cannot, or will not, understand that is just more reasons she should not be trusted.
edit on 14-5-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So many mechanics to ask at a shop.....

Were you in a photo forum and a photographer with 25 years experiance gave you advice how would you respond?

Have you held a clearance?



posted on May, 14 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



The purpose for asking about holding a clearance I think to an extent is valid. Its easy enough to read about classifications and security levels but if you have never held one its difficult to understand where they are coming from.


That's illogical. That's like saying a lawyer cannot properly understand and prosecute/defend a criminal charge because they have never committed that particular crime.




top topics



 
55
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join