|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 08 2017 03:37 LegalLord wrote:
It kind of shows something we already basically knew: that “extremely careless” is a sub-in for the more legally meaningful “gross negligence” and that that is kind of what he was getting at. Maybe he just decided that the legal term would be a bit too charged. Nevertheless it’s an interesting thing to note.
In any case, it’s kind of all in the past now. Hillary in the disgraced state she is now is no more relevant than Hillary in prison. Though a few remnants exist that still cling to her, it’s clear that in all but the party apparatus they have lost all credibility with the results of ‘16.
It brought a smile to my face. I didn't know if he had looked for just a verbal smack from the beginning, or if it was advisers that changed, or if it was Comey that changed it.
The DNC party apparatus is running the 2018 midterms nationally and still recoils and hisses at Brazile/Warren accusations. They're the only credible party opposition to the GOP. Let's hope they show a better job fielding/funding candidates than they are at admitting the mistakes of the past and moving on.
|
On November 08 2017 03:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:09 NewSunshine wrote:On November 08 2017 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard." I know your trying for yet another 'but Hillary' but the headline "Head of FBI is careful with use of language in public statement" doesn't have the same ring to it. It's the same as you get in classic conspiracy theories. If you point out something factually irrelevant and leave it at that, people move on, but if you go "but why is that?", people suddenly start listening. It's an early Comey memo. It's not a charge, it's not a public statement, it has no bearing on anything whatsoever. But a well placed "why?" gets people like Danglars to repost it without fail. I thought it was interesting in its own right, as well as contrasting with how careful Comey was to avoid using gross negligence in his strange press conference. Now, if you want NewSunshine going out and whine about other posters, all you have to do is post an article and be from the right. You do you, though. I haven't a clue if this has always been your reaction, happened after Trump, or making conspiracies about everyone else promoting conspiracies is especially attractive to you.
I know right, just posting an interesting article about how a public statement about an investigation is carefully crafted to use the right words and not the wrong meanings for something the investigation doesn't mean to portrait.
Very interesting to hear of words being changed in a draft to a subtle different meaning. /s
Sorry Danglers but you'll have to do better then your thinly disguised "Comey meant to charge her for gross negligence but someone payed him off" article".
|
maybe comey as a lawyer knows the importance of being precise with language. gee willikers aint that interesting, end of story.
|
On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue.
In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources.
You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting.
Just a thought.
You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too.
|
On November 08 2017 03:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:38 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:09 NewSunshine wrote:On November 08 2017 03:01 Gorsameth wrote:On November 08 2017 02:58 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2016 10:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2016 10:29 Gorsameth wrote:On July 06 2016 10:25 Chezinu wrote:
"Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
Isn't that a crime in and of itself given the position she was in? I have heard the military have strict rules in regards to this. Wouldn't it be like manslaughter as opposed to murder?
Anyone with a law background?
See XDaunts replies in the last few pages. This is his point. Yep, and the fact that Comey used the term "extremely careless" is incredibly telling. He knew that he couldn't say "gross negligence" publicly and not charge her. Instead, he used a term that is basically indistinguishable in meaning, but that lacks the legal significance. EDIT: "Careless" is basically indistinguishable from negligent if you look at the case law. So "extreme carelessness" is essentially the same as "gross negligence." Frankly, I could make the argument that "extreme carelessness" is even worse and on the level of "willful and wanton disregard." https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/927630392508780544 I know your trying for yet another 'but Hillary' but the headline "Head of FBI is careful with use of language in public statement" doesn't have the same ring to it. It's the same as you get in classic conspiracy theories. If you point out something factually irrelevant and leave it at that, people move on, but if you go "but why is that?", people suddenly start listening. It's an early Comey memo. It's not a charge, it's not a public statement, it has no bearing on anything whatsoever. But a well placed "why?" gets people like Danglars to repost it without fail. I thought it was interesting in its own right, as well as contrasting with how careful Comey was to avoid using gross negligence in his strange press conference. Now, if you want NewSunshine going out and whine about other posters, all you have to do is post an article and be from the right. You do you, though. I haven't a clue if this has always been your reaction, happened after Trump, or making conspiracies about everyone else promoting conspiracies is especially attractive to you. I know right, just posting an interesting article about how a public statement about an investigation is carefully crafted to use the right words and not the wrong meanings for something the investigation doesn't mean to portrait. Very interesting to hear of words being changed in a draft to a subtle different meaning. /s Sorry Danglers but you'll have to do better then your thinly disguised "Comey meant to charge her for gross negligence but someone payed him off" article".
Sorry, did you have further comment after "but Hillary?" I did respond to you.
You have a distinct lack of connection to "but Hillary" and alleging a new conspiracy for things I didn't say looks pretty silly, even for you.
|
On November 08 2017 03:43 ticklishmusic wrote:
maybe comey as a lawyer knows the importance of being precise with language. gee willikers aint that interesting, end of story.
It’s about a twit’s worth of interesting story.
|
On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too.
how tame, you could’ve given more on that.
it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read)
|
On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read)
You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress.
|
On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read)
I singled them out because they have a habit of posting articles and not wanting to discuss them.
I don't expect Danglars or xDaunt to post only articles they agree with. The ones they disagree with are ones they'll actually have an opinion about, and will discuss.
On November 08 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress.
Nice try Danglars.
You didn't link the memo. You linked a Twitter account with a leading question that linked to an article discussing a memo that doesn't actually have the memo.
|
On November 08 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) I singled them out because they have a habit of posting articles and not wanting to discuss them. I don't expect Danglars or xDaunt to post only articles they agree with. The ones they disagree with are ones they'll actually have an opinion about, and will discuss. Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress. Nice try Danglars. You didn't link the memo. You linked a Twitter account with a leading question that linked to an article discussing a memo that doesn't actually have the memo.
Today I learned “Why?” Is a leading question?
People have already offered normal non-conspiratorial explanations. Do you have to assume it’s a conspiratorial leading question when there’s some easy ones teed right up? Are you surrounded by too many 9/11 truthers or something?
Also, you gotta nitpick on new facts come to light from a memo drop to Congress and possession/display of the full memo? You have a pretty narrow view on sources and reports.
|
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS.
|
On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS.
Second. There isn't much to discuss that hasn't already been beaten to dead like a mortified hors.
|
On November 08 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) I singled them out because they have a habit of posting articles and not wanting to discuss them. I don't expect Danglars or xDaunt to post only articles they agree with. The ones they disagree with are ones they'll actually have an opinion about, and will discuss. On November 08 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress. Nice try Danglars. You didn't link the memo. You linked a Twitter account with a leading question that linked to an article discussing a memo that doesn't actually have the memo. Today I learned “Why?” Is a leading question? People have already offered normal non-conspiratorial explanations. Do you have to assume it’s a conspiratorial leading question when there’s some easy ones teed right up? Are you surrounded by too many 9/11 truthers or something?
The "leadiness" of the question is meh, but if it didn't even have the memo you gotta own that.
I wouldn't mind hearing the practical differences between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless" (besides legal ramifications) from Comey or anyone else really.
|
On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue.
Danglars quotes a 2016 post arguing that Hillary committed a crime because of gross negligence, but he merely found the article "interesting in its own right" as a technical matter of choosing words.
|
On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS.
One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades.
|
On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades.
I get it, you are happy that your dude won despite the evil lying liberal media saying that he wouldn't and that he is fighting the culture war for you. Can you gloat over your amazing victory of electing a baboon to president someplace else?
|
On November 08 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:00 Simberto wrote:
Can we please not rehash all of the 2016 (post) election bullshit? It was annoying enough when it happened, i don't need a rerun.
Edit: It's not like we don't have enough current BS. One year anniversary of the election is tomorrow. Have a little perspective on the events that may have changed the American political discourse and divide for the next few decades.
"Let me post articles about all the inaccurate poll predictions and gloat in peace"
|
On November 08 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) I singled them out because they have a habit of posting articles and not wanting to discuss them. I don't expect Danglars or xDaunt to post only articles they agree with. The ones they disagree with are ones they'll actually have an opinion about, and will discuss. On November 08 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress. Nice try Danglars. You didn't link the memo. You linked a Twitter account with a leading question that linked to an article discussing a memo that doesn't actually have the memo. Today I learned “Why?” Is a leading question? People have already offered normal non-conspiratorial explanations. Do you have to assume it’s a conspiratorial leading question when there’s some easy ones teed right up? Are you surrounded by too many 9/11 truthers or something? The "leadiness" of the question is meh, but if it didn't even have the memo you gotta own that. I wouldn't mind hearing the practical differences between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless" (besides legal ramifications) from Comey or anyone else really.
One is colloquial, one is a legal term, both basically meaning the same thing.
|
On November 08 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) I singled them out because they have a habit of posting articles and not wanting to discuss them. I don't expect Danglars or xDaunt to post only articles they agree with. The ones they disagree with are ones they'll actually have an opinion about, and will discuss. On November 08 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:59 brian wrote:On November 08 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On November 08 2017 03:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
In an attempt to curtail another 2 pages of waffling, I'd like to remind this thread that Danglars and xDaunt do not stand by the opinions or views of any article they post. They are just posting them as an "isn't that interesting" message, and you can safely nod and say "yes, how interesting" and go back to discussing other things that will get responses.
Should they actually stand by those articles and want to debate the points of them, feel free to continue. In fact, it was good reporting that states the facts according to documents and sources. You know ... in a debating thread ... offering articles that bring up a topic or people might find interesting. Maybe pay more attention to when posted articles are interesting perspectives as opinion journalism and when they're news reporting. Just a thought. You look pretty silly on factual news reporting when you say "opinions or views." Next time, attack sources or attack an opinion piece, because I sometimes post those too. how tame, you could’ve given more on that. it’s an absurd thought to say someone ought only post articles or opinions they agree with. it’s twice as absurd to single out posters and explain they don’t necessarily agree with the articles a poster highlights, as if this was some sort of unspoken rule (which would be the dumbest rule i’ve ever not read) You missed the point. He said opinions or views to describe new facts that have come to light. He should reserve opinions criticism for articles with heavy editorializing. In a news report, attacking it for its opinion and views requires explanation ... this is straight up reporting of a new memo drop to Congress. Nice try Danglars. You didn't link the memo. You linked a Twitter account with a leading question that linked to an article discussing a memo that doesn't actually have the memo. Today I learned “Why?” Is a leading question? People have already offered normal non-conspiratorial explanations. Do you have to assume it’s a conspiratorial leading question when there’s some easy ones teed right up? Are you surrounded by too many 9/11 truthers or something? The "leadiness" of the question is meh, but if it didn't even have the memo you gotta own that. I wouldn't mind hearing the practical differences between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless" (besides legal ramifications) from Comey or anyone else really. One is colloquial, one is a legal term, both basically meaning the same thing.
I mean that's my impression, but anyone who disagrees want to explain their position?
|
the fuck are you people even on about? it was a very interesting discovery totally vindicating XDaunts assumption with regards to Comey’s carefulness with words.
we did already know that, what with his ‘Matter’ speech. but whatever. given the context it was uniquely funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
