davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Really? More of "Look at Bush!"
Thank you for the clarification. As I say, my understanding is that my employer has the right to access my Yahoo account if I use it on my work computer, etc.
Can you show where the use of email alias are illegal in the government? Sure they complicate tracking a person's email, but I am not sure the use of them is illegal. The are doing governments business on government servers and that to me is what is important.
Bush Administration Appointees Also Used 'Secret E-mail Addresses' | ThinkProgress
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that some Obama administration officials utilize non-publicly listed e-mail addresses in addition to their publicly listed ones. But a ThinkProgress Freedom of Information Act request revealed that this common practice was also utilized by the George W. Bush administration and in no way shields those accounts from public records laws
This is complete Bull! It is corrupt, it is illegal, and it is further evidence that this administration cares very little about the law, or the peoples right to oversee their governments actions.
I didn't cherry pick anything j, I took the first paragraph of the article. What Alexander said on a very bias program means nothing. Can you support the crap you wrote in the OP?Not only do you cherry pick others posts, and only read what you want to read in them, but it seems that even when you go to your incredibly biased leftist sites to refute something, you cherry pick that as well....It's right there in your own article....
"Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told Fox and Friends that the use of “secret” secondary e-mails by administration officials could violate public records law, as investigators might not be able to subpoena accounts they did not know about."
I didn't cherry pick anything j, I took the first paragraph of the article. What Alexander said on a very bias program means nothing. Can you support the crap you wrote in the OP?
IOW, you have nothing. :mrgreen:For normal people I have, and unwittingly so have you....For all the leftist progressive hacks out there, probably nothing could meet their bar of support.
IOW, you have nothing. :mrgreen:
You make a baseless claim about the law and when you're called on it, you're going to sleep? Figures.*yawn* you bore me Pete.
Wiki has footnotes you can check.
Why should I do your research for you ?
Your'e a big boy aren't you ?
As you say, there are numerous differences. Another seeming difference is one was confined to seemingly White House staff while the other seems to have the potential to span multiple executive agencies across the government and possible attempts to stifle or slow the disclosure of information (the exorbidant price from one agency, 10 others dragging their feet, etc). Just as someone may have found the Bush issue to be a problem but this one not so much, others could perhaps feel that the potential wider reach of this case to be of greater concern than the Bush case. In both cases, those could just be excuses for a person to go "...well that ones DIFFERENT", but you're absolutely right that the two cases have differences and those differences could lead people to have an issue with one but not the other.
However, the person asking the question phrased it in such a way initially, along with the context of that posters history, to imply that one could not legitimately have an issue with this one but not with Bush's. I was wishing to see if that similar attitude extended the other way, which cwas clearly not hte case when he came up with a "Well, that one was *different*" response, failing to acknowledge that there are differences that could lead one to share his nuanced outrage in the opposite direction.
Their either different issues, and thus the imemdiete attempt at screaming hypocrisy was in error...which was part of my point...OR they are comparable, in which case my question about his consistency when just asking it in a one sided fashion that was justified.
This is much to do about nothing. Just more evidence that "one" side is just looking for something to blame on the "other" side.
Isn't it just a little disconcerting to you that so many of these types of things are coming out at once? And they all seem to have a common thread running through them? And that common thread is that it reeks of corruption, and authoritarianism, but those defending them seem to just blanketly dismiss them?
Where there is so much smoke around, there is a fire somewhere.
And now we get into the "seemingly" and "possibly" and "maybe" and whatever else the conservative conspiracy theory bull**** mind can come up with. Yes, this might be serious, if alot of things which there is no evidence of turns out to be true.
He did the research. He gave you a link that is backed up by footnotes. That you
don't want to read them is actually you not doing your homework... big boy.
So you're saying that WIKI is objective?Let me explain something to you people.
My 7 th grader is NOT ALLOWED to reference WIKI when doing reports.
I get it, most liberal and Obama suporters never made it to the 7th grade or they have the mentallity of a 2cnd grader.
And believe they are entitled to not only their twisted opinion and world view but think the minimum amount of effort needed to prove their point is more than sufficient.
WIKI is not a subjective and is a lazy attempt to prove your point.
But then again I'm telling a Liberal this.
So you're saying that WIKI is objective?
No I mistakenly wrote "subjective".
No, WIKI is not objective.
And now we get into the "seemingly" and "possibly" and "maybe" and whatever else the conservative conspiracy theory bull**** mind can come up with. Yes, this might be serious, if alot of things which there is no evidence of turns out to be true.
You do know that you can log in and change
anything on there, right? If Republicans can't figure that out, who's fault is that?
Sigh......
" Republicans " as well as Conservatives know it's a poor excuse for a source and most chose notnto use it.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.