DOMINUS saidIt's always fascinating to compare a Democrat's post vis-à-vis a Republican's post. The former is usually thoughtful and grounded in fact and/or law (i.e., grounded in reality); the latter is usually hysterical/unmoored and illogical (i.e., grounded in illusion). Exhibits above. What is it that they say about followers and their" role models"?
As I'd quoted in this past, fun little thread http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4184549?forumpage=0
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/41/2/250.shortIn five studies with more than 5,000 participants, we found that liberals think more analytically...than moderates and conservatives. Study 3 replicates this finding in the very different political culture of China, although it held only for people in more modernized urban centers. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives in the same country think as if they were from different cultures. Studies 4 to 5 show that briefly training people to think analytically causes them to form more liberal opinions...
BigJess saidYou - whoever you are since you are a hiding coward - are as deceitful as the other moron. I did not mention "marked as classified" at all. The other moron stated there were only "three THREE 3" classified emails found. Not true.
Do you actually buy your own bullshit or did you expect that we might?
Let's look at what was deceitful here, shall we?
Dustin threw out a number about which I don't know the source and did not comment upon. But you then deceivingly tried to counter that number with an over exaggerated number by purposely leaving off part of the paragraph you quoted which clarified the part you used to counter Dustin.
He said 3. You showed 110 but you purposely hid that among those 110 your own source stated "Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status
The next paragraph if I remember right does say that the FBI thought Clinton should have known their nature even if not so marked. But the fact is, which you have herein attempted to be deceptive about, the fact is that they were not marked. I don't know if that would whittle down the 110 to 3 which might have been marked and don't give enough fuck to google. But the fact remains that even if Dustin was incorrect about the 3--which, again, I don't know, you, I do know, were being deceptive about the 110. And you are doubling down on being deceptive by calling me deceptive when I'd done no such thing but to show facts as they are.
Your complaint that you didn't say "marked" is moot because that would be a factor in determining the severity of any breach.