Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#102 Jul 12 2016 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Perjury before Congress is illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute since, again, you have to be able to prove intent.
Beyond that, if we're being honest, nobody really cares if someone lies to them anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#103 Jul 12 2016 at 10:55 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.

My understanding is that classified documents are supposed to be marked across the header as classified and then, within the body of text, symbols are used to denote the sensitive material. The emails Comey found were marked with a (c) within the document but lacked the headers designed to let you know at a glance that the document was classified.
This. Each document must be marked at the top and bottom of each page. The cover page should be annotated with the highest classification marking within. So, if one sentence of 10,000 sentences is marked Secret, then the entire document is to be marked Secret. When you email that document, not only is the email marked with the classification, so is the subject line. When you open the email, it should have the same header/footer of the classification. It's not the role of the recipient to read everything to determine the classification of the document. That's what the markings are for.

TLW wrote:
So, uh, just thousands and thousands of pages of super sloppy state dept. paperwork?

This really isn't making it better...
It does if you're arguing that this is an ongoing procedural issue as opposed to a singular person intentionally doing something wrong, the way it has been portrayed.
#104 Jul 12 2016 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
This really isn't making it better...
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#105 Jul 12 2016 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#106 Jul 12 2016 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
******
49,673 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run?
Welcome to government bureaucracy.

Pretty much why I scoff at the idea of Big Brother. It requires the government doing something, whereas the current trend for the past hundred or so years is complaining about how things should happen, blaming each other, and not actually doing anything. Also: "Dere gon take our gunz!" and anything involving "oppressive government."

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 1:50pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Jul 12 2016 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Governments around the world have proved that it's way easier to be oppressive than competent, and that competence is not a requirement for oppression.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#108 Jul 12 2016 at 12:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Dunno, I'm assuming she should have done something if she received a message that was improperly marked? And then that wasn't done? That's bad right? Obviously the buck stops at the top, of course, but it's not like one person can fix a broken culture all on their own. Maybe that should have been a higher priority though?

Bleh.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#109 Jul 12 2016 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run?
Welcome to government bureaucracy.

Pretty much why I scoff at the idea of Big Brother. It requires the government doing something, whereas the current trend for the past hundred or so years is complaining about how things should happen, blaming each other, and not actually doing anything. Also: "Dere gon take our gunz!" and anything involving "oppressive government."
If nothing else I just assume you didn't get 48,000 posts by being part of something operating at peak efficiency.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 11:52am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#110 Jul 12 2016 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,673 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Governments around the world have proved that it's way easier to be oppressive than competent, and that competence is not a requirement for oppression.
How many of them involved a tangled two party democracy that does everything in their individual power to hinder the other prior to becoming oppressive?
someproteinguy wrote:
If nothing else I just assume you didn't get 48,000 posts by being part of something operating at peak efficiency.
Or I'm so efficient that it gives me time to get 48,000 posts.

Probably not. Can't sell a couch if no one is buying a couch, yannow?

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 3:18pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#111 Jul 12 2016 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Dunno, I'm assuming she should have done something if she received a message that was improperly marked? And then that wasn't done? That's bad right? Obviously the buck stops at the top, of course, but it's not like one person can fix a broken culture all on their own. Maybe that should have been a higher priority though?

Bleh.


I was under the impression that things improperly marked, and unsecured were being sent out, which is the primary problem. Obviously recieving stuff is also compromised, but also someone else's fault. Obviously the best solution would be not using an insecure system in the first place but...

Root cause is still lack of any sort of oversight, controls, or consequences for negligence (not gross, I guess) in handling this material. If your local small town retail bank can figure this out, shouldn't the international security and diplomacy arm of a global hegemony be able to as well?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#112 Jul 12 2016 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
was under the impression that things improperly marked, and unsecured were being sent out, which is the primary problem. Obviously recieving stuff is also compromised, but also someone else's fault.
Yeah, I don't know. I just assumed there was probably a procedure you're supposed to follow if you received something that was improperly marked. But I know literally nothing about it, hence all the question marks in my sentences above. If nothing else as the boss you'd think she'd have some responsibility for making sure the people doing it were disciplined properly.

Timelordwho wrote:
If your local small town retail bank can figure this out, shouldn't the international security and diplomacy arm of a global hegemony be able to as well?
They didn't get our credit card payment for 2 months because they switched the address the payments were supposed to go to and didn't bother to tell anyone. Smiley: glare

On the plus side, at least they knew about it eventually and took steps to fix the problem once people started getting grumpy with them. Don't know if I can say the same about the State Dept. yet. Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#113 Jul 12 2016 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
The idea that your local bank, or local health care system has this figured out is laughable.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#114 Jul 12 2016 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
At least the retardation isn't confined to the US.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#115 Jul 12 2016 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,064 posts
Holy ****.

This is either the first step in a masterfully complex strategic double bluff from Russia or those are some of the stupidest people alive.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#116 Jul 12 2016 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,239 posts


I really think it is just the new generation. The other day my sister disparaging crap about her new workplace pn FB day after she got the job. Bear in mind, she was looking for a position for a year and she is exactly super employable -- and the job is decent ( indoors with no heavy lifting :P ).
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#117 Jul 13 2016 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
******
49,673 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The idea that your local bank, or local health care system has this figured out is laughable.
Ha ha, local.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Jul 13 2016 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,064 posts
You know Lolgaxe, I don't think I've ever seen you write more than one sentence in a single post? Are you too stupid to string together more than a few words or are you just too lazy to raise your lard filled limb?

We all come to the Asylum to waste time, but spam is not funny. It's crap and no one cares. Even with all your circle jerks you're still at untouchable sage because you post nothing but crap. You are a waste of space.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#119 Jul 13 2016 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
******
49,673 posts
My God, you really are just a beacon of light in these darkened times. So intuitive.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Jul 13 2016 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,283 posts
Screenshot
.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#121 Jul 13 2016 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Smiley: drool2
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#122 Jul 13 2016 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Not crazy, just now aware of the environment. The problem IS/WAS with the state dept, but "neverHillary" people act as if she just came along and changed everything, causing the problems. This problem go back administrations. People conveniently "forget" that the FBI found the same issues with her predecessors.

TLW wrote:
Obviously the best solution would be not using an insecure system in the first place but...
The problem wasn't the system being "insecure", the primary problem was that it was unclassified. That is unless you mean "unclassified" by "insecure"?
#123 Jul 13 2016 at 10:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence.

You're... joking, right? You really think that's how people respond in polls? For real? Please, answer me and tell me that you're being serious here because I'd feel silly having a belly laugh if you're just casting around for debating points right now.


Logical thinking is not your forte, I guess? If the 30% number for people who are "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this was mostly due to people who were not going to vote for Clinton anyway, then why isn't the number of people who are "more likely" to vote for Clinton much much higher than it is in the same poll. The exact same logic applies in both directions. If we assume that people who were already planning on not voting for Clinton would poll as being "less likely" to vote for her, then we must also assume that people who were already planning on voting *for* Clinton would poll as being "more likely" to vote for her.

But we don't see anywhere near the same number for the "more likely" side. So we can speculate that there's some other magical factor going on here, or we can conclude that this poll does actually indicate that a significant number of people who's voting choice is not yet set are now less likely to vote for Clinton as a result of the report. You're more or less desperately grasping at straws here Joph.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right?

Well, no. Because, again, if you're dealing with a number like 30% during a partisan election it's pretty easy to guess where that 30% is coming from.


Again, then why only 8% on the "more likely" side? Are you seriously trying to argue that the pro-Clinton camp isn't partisan? I'm not sure how you're justifying this, or even frankly why. Can't you just accept that the investigation and report were harmful to Clinton and move on? We all know it's true. The question going forward is how much harmful, and whether that harm is sufficient to cost her the election. Denying that any harm occurred just seems bizarre.

Quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it but, if I thought these were terrible numbers and was trying desperately to put a brave face on them while knowing it was all a farce... I'd just not post them? I mean, I wouldn't bother volunteering the info if I thought I was going to have to spin a web of lies around it. More in reality, I'd post it (just cause I find it interesting) and say "Bad news for Camp Clinton..."


And yet, you did actually post numbers that are bad news for Camp Clinton and attempted to claim it was good news. I suspect you're in a better position to judge why you did that, but you did. Maybe you just didn't think though the implications of the numbers? I mean, to me, when 30% of respondents to a poll say they are less likely to vote for a candidate as a result of something versus 8% who say they are more likely to, those are bad numbers for the candidate. I have no clue why you might have thought otherwise.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124 Jul 13 2016 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,283 posts
Well,GB II was a drunken coke-head who wrecked his vehicle while intoxicated on multiple occasions and had to be bailed out of every business he ever ran (into the ground) by his rich relatives and friends and he still got elected (by a pro-family, anti-drug, fiscally conservative party, no less!). So, yeah, do you think most Democrats give two fudge sticks about this crap about Hillary? Really?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#125 Jul 13 2016 at 10:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Again, then why only 8% on the "more likely" side?

Because saying "Yeah, the FBI said she did this stuff and that makes me happy!" isn't as valid as response as "Yeah, the FBI said she did this stuff but oh well, gonna vote Clinton anyway". It's easier to justify "Yeah, maybe that was bad but Trump is worse" than "This was a big plus".
Poll results wrote:
Forty-five percent of Republicans say the issue makes no difference in their vote – likely meaning they wouldn’t have voted for Clinton anyway – while another 47 percent say it makes them less apt to support her. Among Democrats, the email issue makes no difference to three-quarters, and 16 percent say it’s strengthened their support (likely given that she wasn’t charged) – but one in 10 say they’re less likely to vote for her because of it.

Why, golly! The bulk of "less likely" comes from Republicans? But... but... that's impossible!
Quote:
Can't you just accept that the investigation and report were harmful to Clinton and move on? We all know it's true. The question going forward is how much harmful, and whether that harm is sufficient to cost her the election.

You'd almost want to look at some polling results for a hint there. For instance, to see if 70% of voters said it made no difference in their choice or made them more likely to vote for Clinton Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jul 13th 2016 11:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126 Jul 14 2016 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, ok, but doesn't that mean that there is a problem with how the state dept was run? Which, since we've already decided this was non-criminal, would be a relevant concern of someone seeking to deal with even more highly classified material? Also, a concern if you are evaluating managerial capabilities? Am I crazy here or what?
Not crazy, just now aware of the environment. The problem IS/WAS with the state dept, but "neverHillary" people act as if she just came along and changed everything, causing the problems. This problem go back administrations. People conveniently "forget" that the FBI found the same issues with her predecessors.

TLW wrote:
Obviously the best solution would be not using an insecure system in the first place but...
The problem wasn't the system being "insecure", the primary problem was that it was unclassified. That is unless you mean "unclassified" by "insecure"?


No, I mean that the system was lacking in basic security, ergo, insecure. The inappropriate classification is a another, seperate issue. One thing I do wonder is, why is the state department so bad at security? mostly I see a bunch of excuses and blame shifting, while at the same time other agencies are looking to collect more and more personal information, and overstep their voter derived authority.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (63)