Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

How can you call it hypocrisy and then want the opposite to happen? Shouldn't either neither get charged or both?

It's poor form to take one issue like that and try to tie it to an unrelated pet issue of yours.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How can you call it hypocrisy and then want the opposite to happen? Shouldn't either neither get charged or both?

It's poor form to take one issue like that and try to tie it to an unrelated pet issue of yours.

The story talks about the hypocrisy, sorry that you don't like the truth.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The story talks about the hypocrisy, sorry that you don't like the truth.

You are posting it without commentary, it definitely looks like you endorse it (as does your reply).

Seems you mad about this "Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you believe Jason Brezler should be in the Marines and Hillary Clinton should be in jail."

That was in the story, now calm down and realize you had a knee jerk reaction.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Seems you mad about this "Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you believe Jason Brezler should be in the Marines and Hillary Clinton should be in jail."

That was in the story, now calm down and realize you had a knee jerk reaction.

So you reject that part of what you posted?

The only fair thing to do is give Clinton the presidency and reinstate this guy with a jump in pay/rank to O4, everyone wins and is happy that way.

Originally posted by Robtard
The only fair thing to do is give Clinton the presidency and reinstate this guy with a jump in pay/rank, everyone wins and is happy that way.

Hilary has zero chance of winning. People are sick of her fakeness.

I wouldn't say "zero", regardless of how people may personally feel about her, she's a serious contender still.

But that wasn't my point, I'm saying in fairness she should be handed the presidency, just as this guy should be handed a reinstatement and jump in rank. Win/win!

She should be handed the presidency? Because why? Are you even listening to yourself?

Ok fine, how about they both get heavy fines?

He sent those emails under duress to save lives.

Quit joking around about this.

So your stance is: Clinton = bad, Brezler = good?

So you can joke about stuff like...well every other issue you've joked about like black violence and police violence, the President, etc... But when it comes to soldiers we're supposed to be stone faced and serious?

And he wasn't under duress. He wasn't forced to send those messages under threat of harm or something like that. He felt he needed to, but that's not the same as being under duress.

Also, couldn't he have gotten the info to the right people using the right channels?

I'm not saying what happened was right, because it's wrong. But did he have other avenues of letting people know what happened?

Originally posted by Robtard
So your stance is: Clinton = bad, Brezler = good?

Stance is if he was kicked out and brought up on charges. So shall she be.

I see a grand jury inditement in the next few month. Obama is not coming to her rescue. He wants Biden to continue his legacy. Valerie Jared is not going to let up on these leeks.

Originally posted by KingD19
So you can joke about stuff like...well every other issue you've joked about like black violence and police violence, the President, etc... But when it comes to soldiers we're supposed to be stone faced and serious?

And he wasn't under duress. He wasn't forced to send those messages under threat of harm or something like that. He felt he needed to, but that's not the same as being under duress.

Also, couldn't he have gotten the info to the right people using the right channels?

I'm not saying what happened was right, because it's wrong. But did he have other avenues of letting people know what happened?

Do you have a point?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you have a point?


Well

1. You can't talk about hypocriticism, while being hypocritical. i.e This is a serious matter, don't joke about it because it's about a soldier. -has previously joked about other serious matters with abandon-

2. I was asking if there were indeed other paths he could have delivered the information along that wouldn't have gotten him discharged.

3. I was saying he wasn't under duress, because he wasn't forced to send those e-mails for any reason other than his moral compass compelling him to.

Right I'm being hypocritical, I sent those emails. It was me, not Hilary.

Well if you want to say Hilary should be in jail for it and the guy did the same thing then they both should be in prison right?

My own personal feelings would be..no jail time for either, but kicked out of marines for the guy and for Hilary no longer allowed to hold any kind of public office or whatever.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Right I'm being hypotcritical, I sent those emails. It was me, not Hilary.

You're ****ed then, Obama is most def not coming to your rescue.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well if you want to say Hilary should be in jail for it and the guy did the same thing then they both should be in prison right?

My own personal feelings would be..no jail time for either, but kicked out of marines for the guy and for Hilary no longer allowed to hold any kind of public office or whatever.

Your feeling isn't that there should be an investigation completed first?

Originally posted by Surtur
Well if you want to say Hilary should be in jail for it and the guy did the same thing then they both should be in prison right?

My own personal feelings would be..no jail time for either, but kicked out of marines for the guy and for Hilary no longer allowed to hold any kind of public office or whatever.

I agree

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your feeling isn't that there should be an investigation completed first?

There should be an investigation first, I was just saying what I felt would be the appropriate punishment if said investigations showed they were guilty of what they are being accused of.

Originally posted by Surtur
There should be an investigation first, I was just saying what I felt would be the appropriate punishment if said investigations showed they were guilty of what they are being accused of.

Okay, I see what you mean now.

Hilary will be going down, as she is daily. She can't answer questions, and her un funny jokes are not working.

Everyone here was wrong as usual, Including King D.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/08/19/completely-betrayed/

He was under fear of being killed for trying to expose a child sex ring and informing the commandant that a terrorist was running this base.

http://m.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-war-on-terror-487284/must-hear-the-disgraceful-treatment-of-13871372/

He sent no emails that were not cleared by his Major.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ok fine, how about they both get heavy fines?

And disbarred from working in government positions for life?


Yeah, sounds good. No jail time.

Originally posted by Robtard
So your stance is: Clinton = bad, Brezler = good?

My stance is both are bad but Clinton may be worse.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Stance is if he was kicked out and brought up on charges. So shall she be.


That seems very simple. Of course, Clinton's offenses are worse. But Clinton is not as culpable because she was doing what others in her office have done before.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your feeling isn't that there should be an investigation completed first?

Yeaaaah, not gonna happen. Likely, she had her servers wiped...wiped very very cleanly. Nothing to recover.

This is part of why she had it on a personal server: no data over government servers where it is required that they keep that data for 18 months.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary has zero chance of winning. People are sick of her fakeness.




Precisely.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary will be going down, as she is daily. She can't answer questions, and her un funny jokes are not working.
I always find it incredible how you seem incapable of understanding that not everyone has your angle of vision.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I always find it incredible how you seem incapable of understanding that not everyone has your angle of vision. We all should aspire to though.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I always find it incredible how you seem incapable of understanding that not everyone has your angle of vision.

My point of view is based in fact. Besides your off topic.

Mostly because people sent them to her unlabeled-as-classified. There still seems to be a lack of evidence of any leaks there or even purposefully doing it.

That said, I think this Marine should not be charged. Whistle blowing important things is something that should be protected, and the current culture of punishing people who speak out is a bad one.

If you think whistle blowing for important things should be protected I would advise you to stay out of the Ashley Madison thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you think whistle blowing for important things should be protected I would advise you to stay out of the Ashley Madison thread.

That's ridiculous. There's a reasonable argument to be made that leaking private data due to perceived transgressions in the private lives of people is completely different than whistleblowing on the government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's ridiculous. There's a reasonable argument to be made that leaking private data due to perceived transgressions in the private lives of people is completely different than whistleblowing on the government.

But people were saying that no matter what privacy should be protected in that thread though. So you don't get to say privacy should be protected no matter what, and then list some exceptions.

Originally posted by Surtur
But people were saying that no matter what privacy should be protected in that thread though. So you don't get to say privacy should be protected no matter what, and then list some exceptions. Except you can. It's called clarifying one's stance. Either because you didn't think of a previous scenario before, or perhaps you just view the two events as not the same topic, and etc. We are human beings and we can have varying degrees of opinions on similar topics based on a few slight variations in the context of events.

So instead of crucifying someone for it let's move back to productive conversation.

Originally posted by Surtur
But people were saying that no matter what privacy should be protected in that thread though. So you don't get to say privacy should be protected no matter what, and then list some exceptions.

The government has no privacy, it's not a person.

At any rate, I don't think anyone is arguing for an absolute right to privacy, we still want murderers, etc. to be caught, so of course there's exceptions.

You say that, but people were flat out saying there should be no exceptions. If people want to clarify, then clarify, but don't come at me for merely repeating what others said.

Originally posted by Surtur
You say that, but people were flat out saying there should be no exceptions. If people want to clarify, then clarify, but don't come at me for merely repeating what others said.

You really need to work better on understanding people's arguments.

The claim in that thread was you not liking something is not enough to override people's right to privacy privacy related to their legal activities.

THIS, on the other hand, is (purportedly) about exposing an illegal cover up (covering up something even more illegal), and is nothing to do with people's everyday privacy. It's not remotely the same. Whistleblowing on illegality is an established practice.

No-one ever said "No exceptions under any circumstances". It is bad faith of you to claim that this is what others said. The only claim is that privacy has to be applied universally regardless of disapproval, not that privacy overrides everything else universally, no matter what. Everyone has the same right to privacy, and likewise everyone has the same point at where that right ends- at illegality.

But the comment I quoted wasn't talking about whistle blowing illegal things, but important things.

That seems a rather pedantic way to approach it, as the thread is clearly about illegality.

But the argument extends to public interest disclosures as well.

But I assumed the person was speaking in general when speaking about that so..okie dokie.