Peachy. I’m glad you’ve seen the light.
It still stands that you were being incredibly pigheaded up until then.
Bricker, I understand what you’re doing. Semantically, there’s a difference between “I think she did something illegal” and “I know she did something illegal.” Logically there’s a difference. I get that.
But that wasn’t ever the question. The question is whether we should investigate further. And the answer is yes regardless of what we ask from above. Whether we have definitive proof or just reasonable suspicion, the answer to the question of further investigation is “yes.”
It’s the same standard we’d have for a search warrant into a home. Heck, we don’t even need something that rises to the analogous level that we have here: e-mail subject matters that look damning to officials in other government positions. You can get a warrant to search a home based upon a tip from an anonymous source! In that case do we have proof something bad’s been done? No we sure don’t. But do the police have enough reasonable suspicion to conduct further investigation? Ayup.
Agreed.
You’re wrong.
If you can point me towards the place in this thread prior to post #9 where the question “Should we investigate further?” was asked, I’ll happily concede your point.
In post 9, Lightin’ says:
That’s not “should be looked into,” is it? That’s “case closed, the issue is decided.”
In the very next post, I asked how he knew.
There were two acceptable answers:
-
I don’t know, good point. But at least it should be looked into.
-
Here’s how I know: xxx xxxx x xxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxx…
Instead,we got…
Well, anyone can read the thread and see what we got. Lots of wild gesticulation, ended by Tenebras saying: “2!”
No. I hadn’t seen the specifics, ever. I hadn’t heard the specifics. I heard a bunch of weasel words that often precede an attempt to persuade listeners of facts that aren’t proven.
NOW, with specifics, I’m prepared to say the issue is demonstrated sufficiently. Of course, there could be some innocent or quasi-legal explanation still (say, for example, these were copies of e-mails also existing on the official e-mail system, which is apparently allowed by law). But at this point, it falls to the other side to prove those exceptions.
Bricker, there’s only one weasel in this thread and it’s you. I haven’t seen this much tapdancing since the Ben Vereen Variety Hour.
I think Bricker serves a very useful purpose here. He’s playing devil’s advocate, and rightfully so. He’s admitted, after someone finally offered some “proof,” that there is indeed a reason to investigate. He wasn’t being at all the weasel.
Maybe so, but let’s not forget that the infamous “Writes-His-Confession-In-Blood” Killer is back out on the street thanks to Bricker.
Are you saying that, prior to Tenebras’ detailed response, there was enough info IN THIS THREAD or its linked cites for a reasonable person to conclude the law was violated? That means, in case you don’t know (or care) that there was a specific allegation of wrongdoing?
If so, please point me to it.
Oh for the love of crap.
Y’know, I like Bricker just the way he is. Speaking as an Obama supporter who’s opinion on this issue is that Ms. Palin is probably abusing her private e-mail based on the evidence extant, sometimes it’s nice to have someone who actually cares about being scrupulous.
Look at it this way–Bricker, by being contrary, forced the collective you to go from potentially unsupported allegations to an actual case with law cites. Shit, you should be thanking him for the devil’s advocate help.
I’m never afraid to challenge Bricker, but this time I think he’s right. The allegations posted in the thread didn’t rise to the level of spectral evidence in the Salem witchcraft trials.
Now I’m sure that Bricker will hold to his own rigorous standards and declare that the actions of one person, Democrat or Republican, don’t effectively tar or taint the entire political party (cf ACORN).
There’s an important distinction between a devil’s advocate and a Satanist.
What if YOU’RE the next victim found mutilated next to a blood-scrawled confession? Did you even think about that possibility? Just don’t let us catch you coming around here complaining about it after this.
Except the situations are different, and Bricker explicitly disclaimed the words you put in his mouth.
The fact that his political beliefs don’t align with yours doesn’t give you an excuse to be an dick about the fact he just handed you guys your own ass until Tenebras came through with the cite. Do you people seriously act like this in real life? I don’t flip out on my dad when he asks for proof of when various things happen to a fetus when we argue abortion, I go get a fuckin’ cite or I back off my certainty. He shows the same courtesy to me–and Bricker has shown the same courtesy every time I’ve seen him called on something.
What words? When? Bricker never said ‘boo’ about my words, explicitly or otherwise. Don’t explicitly claim that things have been explicitly disclaimed when they have not, in fact, been explicitly disclaimed. I have never, to my recollection, placed anything in Bricker’s mouth; and I will continue to stand by that claim until confronted with explicit evidence to the contrary, in private.
Oh, poop on you. I’m not explicitly being a dick about his political beliefs, I’m explicitly being a dick about the fact that he allows hypothetical blood-scrawling maniacs the freedom to hypothetically kill again. The explicit condemnation of such a hypothetical practice transcends all hypothetically explicit political boundaries, except for hypothetically explicit blood-scrawling Republicans of course.
Won’t someone think explicitly of the hypothetical children?
Absolutely. ACORN, as a group, has done valuable work. ACORN, in one or more offices, have had a few careless people do some boneheaded things. That doesn’t mean the whole group should be shut down or hauled off to the gulag, by any means.
In my opinion Bricker reads like a bad lawyer stereo type. Jackie Chiles in fact.
Now he has all the thread about him not why on earth Palin’s email so much precious then any other hacking victim. Why on earth she wasn’t simply told to make another account like 99.9999999% of the rest of the population I don’t know.
I suspect elitism. Which hypocritical Republicans like her denounce. Fuck her. If my email is ever hacked I plan to sue the cops for everything I can if there’s not a similarly large scale investigation into my email theft.
tl;dr: Bricker is a troll and you idiots fall for it every time.
You people should be smarter then that. Wise up.
I dunno, The Tao’s Revenge.
I would suspect that if a McCain supporter was caught snooping around Biden’s or Obama’s emails, we would see outrage on this board.
From *Mother Jones*:
Big surprise.
I would say “ACORN, in one or more offices, had some people doing questionable things.”
I won’t call the people careless, or their moves boneheaded, until I know more. I’m not one to create conspiracies where none exist, but it’s distantly possible that these false records deliberately for the purpose of discrediting ACORN.
Crazy? Maybe, but not unheard of. See Dan Rather and the George Bush military records; also see the lawsuit by Marvel Comics against Cryptic Games. (Marvel filed a lawsuit against Cryptic, alleging that “City of Heroes” allowed players to create costumes that duplicated some of Marvel’s trademarked characters. As proof, they submitted pictures of their own employees breaking the trademark, for which they sued Cryptic. Next up: Marvel Comics sues Faber Castell pencils because those pencils can be used to violate Marvel’s trademark.)
I’ll wait until they catch the guy before I decide what kind of act this was. For the moment I’ll settle upon “unfortunate that it happened, but fortunate that ACORN was vigilant enough to mark those submissions as suspicious.”