Right. So, I go up to your house and try your door. The door's that's supposed to be locked, with a key.
I try the door, that door that's supposed to be locked, and it opens. So, I march in, find your diary, and I take it.
How the hell is that theft by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming I watched your wife get undressed through the bathroom window from the street and it was her fault when I got caught developing the pictures because she left the curtain open.
I mean! Be reasonable! I'm a Republican!
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
Better example. The mail comes and the post office employee has put your mail in my mailbox. I notice an issue of Playboy and a couple collection notices, and then notice it isn't my address on there. I take them next door and give them to you.
I don't understand what the supposed misunderstanding is...
you don't go looking at the other party's private files... period.
And you certianly don't go around showing the files to Bob Novak.
But then again telling him someone is a CIA operative isn't supposed to happen either.
And if they didn't know...Plame was an "operative" why don't they just step up and admit it... and apologize.
Please, you make this way to complicated. It is like when people post in here about the signs already being pre-painted, printed at political rally's etc.
I've been to these things. The talking points are often on full display. We are talking about Senators, Senate Staffers on a Senate computer and involving file permissions.
For this to be a "watergate" you would have to have Bush ordering Republican operative hackers to crack into the DNC's computer located at DNC headquarters, not a federal office.
But that's okay, you can't see the difference because you don't care to do so. Repeating your lie might make it a truth to someone somewhere.
You don't get it, or are not reading. The server was serving both parties. The only difference was permissions.
You're full of crap here Nick. The only difference wasn't just 'permissions', and computers don't sort files like you claim. Unless all of the files on a share were put in one gigantic unorganized directory, someone would have to intentionally browse into a directory that they didn't explicitly have permission to go into.
I'm sorry but Hatch agrees with me. You're wrong, he's right, deal with it.
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
You probably don't understand that a 'shared server' doesn't even necessarily mean the save physical machine. Republicans did things they knew they weren't supposed to do. That's what Orrin Hatch says. Are you going to argue with him? If you are, I'll just say that he's in a much better position to comment on the situation and he's already said that some republican staff have been involved in wrongdoing.
You're full of crap here Nick. The only difference wasn't just 'permissions', and computers don't sort files like you claim. Unless all of the files on a share were put in one gigantic unorganized directory, someone would have to intentionally browse into a directory that they didn't explicitly have permission to go into.
I'm sorry but Hatch agrees with me. You're wrong, he's right, deal with it.
That is the point. The directory/files were supposed to request a password for access and did not.
As for Hatch agreeing with you, he is "mortified this happened on his watch." Which is political-ese for CYA.
You probably don't understand that a 'shared server' doesn't even necessarily mean the save physical machine. Republicans did things they knew they weren't supposed to do. That's what Orrin Hatch says. Are you going to argue with him? If you are, I'll just say that he's in a much better position to comment on the situation and he's already said that some republican staff have been involved in wrongdoing.
Deal with it.
You are right it doesn't necessarily mean the same physical machine. The point is that no matter what this wasn't a hacking incident. It also wasn't a President ordering someone to go break into the headquarters nor even the computer at the headquarters of the DNC. So keep repeating yourself ad hominem because that won't change.
These are strategy memos and talking points. There aren't government secrets being discussed and it isn't even clear they are considered official business.
You take an article full of hypotheticals and apply them as absolutes.
in any case, i doubt the Dems. are going to want to make much of an issue of this anyway.
if they do, their memo's will keep coming up over and over, and let's be honest, who has more to lose here?
you have the Dems, who can show, w/o question that the Reps. are a bunch of dirty bastards who don't play fair.
then you have the Reps, who can show that the Dems don't want to let minorities into positions of authority.
now, who's reputation will be hurt more by this? the Reps, who (IMO) are already considered a bunch of dirty bastards, or the Dems, who (IMO) are seen as the party for minorities.
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
Better example. The mail comes and the post office employee has put your mail in my mailbox. I notice an issue of Playboy and a couple collection notices, and then notice it isn't my address on there. I take them next door and give them to you.
Have I invaded your privacy?
Nick
Yes, if you open the mail and read it and then publish it for all to see.
You take an article full of hypotheticals and apply them as absolutes.
You just can't admit it. Why not?
You were 100% sure that there was no wrongdoing. Orrin Hatch, a republican in charge of the investigation, comes out and says there was some wrongdoing. You're now saying there was no wrongdoing and the article is 100% hypothetical.
You were 100% sure that there was no wrongdoing. Orrin Hatch, a republican in charge of the investigation, comes out and says there was some wrongdoing. You're now saying there was no wrongdoing and the article is 100% hypothetical.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
I agree with you here. I don't know what the hell Trumpet's problem is here. He likens it to having mail delivered to the wrong house. Well, you still aren't allowed to OPEN IT before returning it.
....then you have the Reps, who can show that the Dems don't want to let minorities into positions of authority.
Quote:
Response from Addabox:
That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of the content of the memos?
Well, the implication is more like that the Dems want to hold the race/ethnicity card to themselves. It just shows they view race as a tool. It's understandable politically, whatever you think of it ethically is another matter. But it's not really new.
It could, like i that article, be taken out of context to some degree. One could claim simply that Estrada is viewed by Dems as, "dangerous, because . . . he is Latino." Out of context? Yes. Unethical? Yes. Political ammo? Certainly.
*click* Hey, I see these private files of the Democrats sitting in the directory. Well, these aren't my files so I won't even try opening them.
Less than proper reaction but still deserving of some credit for restraint after the initial offense:
*click* Hey, nice files. I wonder if I can open them. *click click* Oh shit I can open them that's a major security flaw I better close them immediately without reading anything and report it to the proper IT authorities.
The worst possible reaction:
*click* JACKPOT! *click click* Oooh this shit is JUICY! I'm gonna use it in a Republican magazine AND not tell anyone about the security breach! *evil laugh*
You were 100% sure that there was no wrongdoing. Orrin Hatch, a republican in charge of the investigation, comes out and says there was some wrongdoing. You're now saying there was no wrongdoing and the article is 100% hypothetical.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
Like I said, Orrin hasn't said so based off even any charges being filed. He has said so to appear upset over something that occured on his watch. It is CYA politics. I can understand it even if I don't approve of it. Has he named a name or a charge or just expressed being upset? The only reason you harp on this of course is because I have already shown how much this ISN'T like watergate.
Here is what Orrin said
Quote:
"mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."
Orrin is a smart man and knows how politics works. Do you see the word illegal in there? Improper as in bad manners, unethical as in might get a censure vote for a staffer from the senate, unacceptable, well of course it has to be unacceptable, it happened on his watch.
When you look at the article it has MANY, MANY hypotheticals all which would have to be pursued and line up on guilty to even get a prosecutable offense. There has to be proof that the computer was hacked and then proof the documents were private property instead of government business. Proof the Democrats were not notified and proof that some extraordinary measure had to be taken to reach the files. The payoff for all of this could be a year in jail for someone.
So why would I call that wrong? Again if they were talking about government secrets or anything of that nature, I would definately raise an eyebrow. However I have seen actual talking points memos. They are basically a bulleted list of sound bites and everyone uses them and knows they are out there. They are often faxed or emailed to the media ahead of the talking heads coming and spinning the news toward the talking points.
Likewise strategy guides or sessions are not top secret information any more than watching video of an upcoming team you are going to play is wrong. All this amounted to was basically two types of spin guides. The Republicans claim they told them about the glitch and that the Democrats did nothing about it, instead doing the equivalent of leaving them laying around. In another post I mentioned someone had gotten the Edwards Iowa guide which had 10 pages of sound bite characterizations to use against his opponents. Did someone break the law in getting that? No.
Lastly you seem to forget that we have all used computers. Most of use have used a Windows machine in a network environment with an account that allowed certain actions and disallowed others. There is really no way to know what can and cannot be done until you try it. It simply shows a folder or a file. There is no markings on it declaring it inaccessable. They clicked on the memo, it came up instead of asking for a password. That is not hacking.
This is very much like the Republicans and Democrats sharing a photocopier and the Democrats leaving a file of talking points and strategies in a folder in the room.
Now why don't you just admit that if the Clinton White House wasn't harmed in their obvious mishandling of FBI files which actually do constitute and deal with official business and do have privacy matters, that nothing will come of these talking point memos which have no privacy concerns, and were accessed via normal means on a computer.
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
Better example. The mail comes and the post office employee has put your mail in my mailbox. I notice an issue of Playboy and a couple collection notices, and then notice it isn't my address on there. I take them next door and give them to you.
Have I invaded your privacy?
Nick
Nick:
OK. Your analogy's helping us to work things out a bit.
So. It's like we live in a shared house where the mail all goes on the floor.
No mistake from the postman: our mail all lands on the same mat.
You see my mail, you open my letters from the debt collector and the doctor and you put them on the door of the fridge for everyone in the house to see.
My fault's only in my choice of who I decide to share a house with.
Yes, you have invaded my privacy. How could you not?
Comments
you don't go looking at the other party's private files... period.
And you certianly don't go around showing the files to Bob Novak.
But then again telling him someone is a CIA operative isn't supposed to happen either.
And if they didn't know...Plame was an "operative" why don't they just step up and admit it... and apologize.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
OK. Your analogy's about to get a shafting.
Right. So, I go up to your house and try your door. The door's that's supposed to be locked, with a key.
I try the door, that door that's supposed to be locked, and it opens. So, I march in, find your diary, and I take it.
How the hell is that theft by any stretch of the imagination? It would be like me claiming I watched your wife get undressed through the bathroom window from the street and it was her fault when I got caught developing the pictures because she left the curtain open.
I mean! Be reasonable! I'm a Republican!
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
Better example. The mail comes and the post office employee has put your mail in my mailbox. I notice an issue of Playboy and a couple collection notices, and then notice it isn't my address on there. I take them next door and give them to you.
Have I invaded your privacy?
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I don't understand what the supposed misunderstanding is...
you don't go looking at the other party's private files... period.
And you certianly don't go around showing the files to Bob Novak.
But then again telling him someone is a CIA operative isn't supposed to happen either.
And if they didn't know...Plame was an "operative" why don't they just step up and admit it... and apologize.
Please, you make this way to complicated. It is like when people post in here about the signs already being pre-painted, printed at political rally's etc.
I've been to these things. The talking points are often on full display. We are talking about Senators, Senate Staffers on a Senate computer and involving file permissions.
For this to be a "watergate" you would have to have Bush ordering Republican operative hackers to crack into the DNC's computer located at DNC headquarters, not a federal office.
But that's okay, you can't see the difference because you don't care to do so. Repeating your lie might make it a truth to someone somewhere.
Nick
Tralala whoops what's this... an internal memo... hmmm... I'll show it to Novak... tralalalala
Originally posted by trumptman
You don't get it, or are not reading. The server was serving both parties. The only difference was permissions.
You're full of crap here Nick. The only difference wasn't just 'permissions', and computers don't sort files like you claim. Unless all of the files on a share were put in one gigantic unorganized directory, someone would have to intentionally browse into a directory that they didn't explicitly have permission to go into.
I'm sorry but Hatch agrees with me. You're wrong, he's right, deal with it.
Originally posted by trumptman
We honestly don't know if there is evidence of doing more than looking at the files.
I say again, Orrin Hatch disagrees with you. Deal with it.
Originally posted by trumptman
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
You probably don't understand that a 'shared server' doesn't even necessarily mean the save physical machine. Republicans did things they knew they weren't supposed to do. That's what Orrin Hatch says. Are you going to argue with him? If you are, I'll just say that he's in a much better position to comment on the situation and he's already said that some republican staff have been involved in wrongdoing.
Deal with it.
Originally posted by bunge
You're full of crap here Nick. The only difference wasn't just 'permissions', and computers don't sort files like you claim. Unless all of the files on a share were put in one gigantic unorganized directory, someone would have to intentionally browse into a directory that they didn't explicitly have permission to go into.
I'm sorry but Hatch agrees with me. You're wrong, he's right, deal with it.
That is the point. The directory/files were supposed to request a password for access and did not.
As for Hatch agreeing with you, he is "mortified this happened on his watch." Which is political-ese for CYA.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
You probably don't understand that a 'shared server' doesn't even necessarily mean the save physical machine. Republicans did things they knew they weren't supposed to do. That's what Orrin Hatch says. Are you going to argue with him? If you are, I'll just say that he's in a much better position to comment on the situation and he's already said that some republican staff have been involved in wrongdoing.
Deal with it.
You are right it doesn't necessarily mean the same physical machine. The point is that no matter what this wasn't a hacking incident. It also wasn't a President ordering someone to go break into the headquarters nor even the computer at the headquarters of the DNC. So keep repeating yourself ad hominem because that won't change.
These are strategy memos and talking points. There aren't government secrets being discussed and it isn't even clear they are considered official business.
You take an article full of hypotheticals and apply them as absolutes.
Nick
if they do, their memo's will keep coming up over and over, and let's be honest, who has more to lose here?
you have the Dems, who can show, w/o question that the Reps. are a bunch of dirty bastards who don't play fair.
then you have the Reps, who can show that the Dems don't want to let minorities into positions of authority.
now, who's reputation will be hurt more by this? the Reps, who (IMO) are already considered a bunch of dirty bastards, or the Dems, who (IMO) are seen as the party for minorities.
Originally posted by trumptman
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
Better example. The mail comes and the post office employee has put your mail in my mailbox. I notice an issue of Playboy and a couple collection notices, and then notice it isn't my address on there. I take them next door and give them to you.
Have I invaded your privacy?
Nick
Yes, if you open the mail and read it and then publish it for all to see.
Originally posted by alcimedes
....then you have the Reps, who can show that the Dems don't want to let minorities into positions of authority.
That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of the content of the memos...
Originally posted by trumptman
You take an article full of hypotheticals and apply them as absolutes.
You just can't admit it. Why not?
You were 100% sure that there was no wrongdoing. Orrin Hatch, a republican in charge of the investigation, comes out and says there was some wrongdoing. You're now saying there was no wrongdoing and the article is 100% hypothetical.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
Originally posted by bunge
You just can't admit it. Why not?
You were 100% sure that there was no wrongdoing. Orrin Hatch, a republican in charge of the investigation, comes out and says there was some wrongdoing. You're now saying there was no wrongdoing and the article is 100% hypothetical.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
I agree with you here. I don't know what the hell Trumpet's problem is here. He likens it to having mail delivered to the wrong house. Well, you still aren't allowed to OPEN IT before returning it.
Quoted from Alcimedes:
....then you have the Reps, who can show that the Dems don't want to let minorities into positions of authority.
Response from Addabox:
That's a pretty gross mischaracterization of the content of the memos?
Well, the implication is more like that the Dems want to hold the race/ethnicity card to themselves. It just shows they view race as a tool. It's understandable politically, whatever you think of it ethically is another matter. But it's not really new.
It could, like i that article, be taken out of context to some degree. One could claim simply that Estrada is viewed by Dems as, "dangerous, because . . . he is Latino." Out of context? Yes. Unethical? Yes. Political ammo? Certainly.
Nobody plays fair, do they?
*click* Hey, I see these private files of the Democrats sitting in the directory. Well, these aren't my files so I won't even try opening them.
Less than proper reaction but still deserving of some credit for restraint after the initial offense:
*click* Hey, nice files. I wonder if I can open them. *click click* Oh shit I can open them that's a major security flaw I better close them immediately without reading anything and report it to the proper IT authorities.
The worst possible reaction:
*click* JACKPOT! *click click* Oooh this shit is JUICY! I'm gonna use it in a Republican magazine AND not tell anyone about the security breach! *evil laugh*
Originally posted by BR
I agree with you here.
I think I just coughed up my spleen.
Originally posted by bunge
I think I just coughed up my spleen.
Yeah, that generally happens when people mired in partisanship and rherotic meet someone who is truly fair and balanced.
Originally posted by bunge
You just can't admit it. Why not?
You were 100% sure that there was no wrongdoing. Orrin Hatch, a republican in charge of the investigation, comes out and says there was some wrongdoing. You're now saying there was no wrongdoing and the article is 100% hypothetical.
Why not just admit you were wrong?
Like I said, Orrin hasn't said so based off even any charges being filed. He has said so to appear upset over something that occured on his watch. It is CYA politics. I can understand it even if I don't approve of it. Has he named a name or a charge or just expressed being upset? The only reason you harp on this of course is because I have already shown how much this ISN'T like watergate.
Here is what Orrin said
"mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."
Orrin is a smart man and knows how politics works. Do you see the word illegal in there? Improper as in bad manners, unethical as in might get a censure vote for a staffer from the senate, unacceptable, well of course it has to be unacceptable, it happened on his watch.
When you look at the article it has MANY, MANY hypotheticals all which would have to be pursued and line up on guilty to even get a prosecutable offense. There has to be proof that the computer was hacked and then proof the documents were private property instead of government business. Proof the Democrats were not notified and proof that some extraordinary measure had to be taken to reach the files. The payoff for all of this could be a year in jail for someone.
So why would I call that wrong? Again if they were talking about government secrets or anything of that nature, I would definately raise an eyebrow. However I have seen actual talking points memos. They are basically a bulleted list of sound bites and everyone uses them and knows they are out there. They are often faxed or emailed to the media ahead of the talking heads coming and spinning the news toward the talking points.
Likewise strategy guides or sessions are not top secret information any more than watching video of an upcoming team you are going to play is wrong. All this amounted to was basically two types of spin guides. The Republicans claim they told them about the glitch and that the Democrats did nothing about it, instead doing the equivalent of leaving them laying around. In another post I mentioned someone had gotten the Edwards Iowa guide which had 10 pages of sound bite characterizations to use against his opponents. Did someone break the law in getting that? No.
Lastly you seem to forget that we have all used computers. Most of use have used a Windows machine in a network environment with an account that allowed certain actions and disallowed others. There is really no way to know what can and cannot be done until you try it. It simply shows a folder or a file. There is no markings on it declaring it inaccessable. They clicked on the memo, it came up instead of asking for a password. That is not hacking.
This is very much like the Republicans and Democrats sharing a photocopier and the Democrats leaving a file of talking points and strategies in a folder in the room.
Now why don't you just admit that if the Clinton White House wasn't harmed in their obvious mishandling of FBI files which actually do constitute and deal with official business and do have privacy matters, that nothing will come of these talking point memos which have no privacy concerns, and were accessed via normal means on a computer.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Again wrong analogy because these files were on a shared server and it is a permissions issue.
Better example. The mail comes and the post office employee has put your mail in my mailbox. I notice an issue of Playboy and a couple collection notices, and then notice it isn't my address on there. I take them next door and give them to you.
Have I invaded your privacy?
Nick
Nick:
OK. Your analogy's helping us to work things out a bit.
So. It's like we live in a shared house where the mail all goes on the floor.
No mistake from the postman: our mail all lands on the same mat.
You see my mail, you open my letters from the debt collector and the doctor and you put them on the door of the fridge for everyone in the house to see.
My fault's only in my choice of who I decide to share a house with.
Yes, you have invaded my privacy. How could you not?