61 dead Palestinians.... why did Trump do this?

I'll just say this, TS SAP's SCI are handled in a SCIF. Nothing allowed in or out. The TS SCI network is secured with cryptographic equipment, usually a KG 175's or something akin to that. We're not talking NIPR net or even SIPR net here. We're talking about a TS SCI network with no interfaces between NIPR or SIPR. Was Hillary's server secured with a cryptographic device or not? Was her server located in a SCIF or not? Was access limited to only those who had not only the security clearance, but also a need to know?

I highly doubt that. You're talking unclassified networks, NIPR and I would say you're correct there. But NIPR is not SIPR and certainly not the TS SCI network. For 22 TS SCI SAP's to appear on Hillary's server someone had to enter a SCIF and either use an unauthorized thumb drive or hand copy those TS SCI SAP messages and then leave the SCIF with those in his possession, then either retype the message or use the thumb drive to reintroduce it into the unclassified, NIPR network.

A very gross violation of security.

 

Except for the fact that he wants to cruelly force Jewish bakers to bake a cake for Jew hating nazi's and cruelly force a gay baker to bake a cake for an anti-gay hate group! And he calls himself a libertarian!

 

If one goes by what most every RWer in the country says, yes, USA is a christian nation.

 

I'm interested in what YOU say, not RWers.

 

It's not what I have to say. For I just say what the data/statistics say.
Again, you can google the amount of christians that reside in the USA.
I'm not interested in playing whatever game you want to play.

 

The Old Testament also said to kill adulterers. Christian have the New testament. I wouldn't blame Christianity when Christians act in contradiction with their doctrine.

Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more......”

"For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ...Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

 

Sure. Like Nixon did. He managed to stay away from prison.

 

The U.S. had active control over making a show of the Embassy move and the Taunting Party. that initiated a series of foreseeable events which ultimately caused 61 deaths.... No idea if that's what you mean by "active control over the situations".

 

And I like having that "problem" (if you consider it a problem) Since childhood my education has been mostly guided by a strong Scientific attitude and rational mindset. In short, I have been taught to be highly suspicious of statements that imply a 100% of anything...

 

Wait a second.... This is ridiculous! We're talking about emails. Her classified electronic documents were, in fact, always saved in a Secure government-approved Server. Which, before 2014, were also hacked constantly. Her emails were transmitted using unsecure protocols because... SMTP is an unsecure protocol. Makes no difference where you store the emails.

We don't know much about Hillary's server. But It most assuredly was very attractive to any hacker. And yet, it was never hacked. Whoever her IT was... they were good.

Of course, regulations are much more stringent today then they were in 2012. Hillary using her personal email was a violation of regulations. But, at the time, it was not much more serious than parking a mid-size in a spot designated for compact cars.

 

No its not. The Government has at least three networks, NIPR, unclassified. SIPR classified up to Secret and TS SCI along with a few other dedicated networks. Both the SIPR and TS SCI networks are secured with encryption devices. It seems you're placing everything into the NIPR network, the unclassified network. DISA maintains the hubs for the various networks.

Regardless, anything that goes over SIPR or the SCI network goes through encryption prior to hitting the cloud. There will be a .Gov or a .Mil or something akin to that in the header that directs where the e-mail goes.

 

I KNOW how email works. But it doesn't matter. They can encrypt all they want. Encryption is not an impediment. At least not in 2012. PGP had many flaws. But much of the government kept relying on it... at least until 2014. I don't know the State Department, but there are also other ways in which the server can be hacked. Keep in mind that encryption is only as good as the security of the passwords used. And the training of the operators.

What you describe seems pretty organized and structured. That was not the case when Hillary was Secretary of State. I'm happy to hear they have cleaned up a bit. But, at the time, government agencies had each their own I.T. policies and varying levels of security. From what I read, the State Department was one of the worst.

Bottom line: they were hacked. And Hillary's server was not.

 

What science and rationale guided you towards this opinion?

 

This particular thread of conversation between us dates back to this post: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-trump-do-this.532781/page-26#post-1069090882

In that post you disagreed with the following comment: "Trump has no control over either Hamas or the Palestinians living in Gaza." Do you still disagree?

 

Nixon was able to be protected from prosecution simply by resigning?

 

So there was a point in history that everyone in the USA was a Christian?

The amount of Christians that reside in the USA is completely and totally irrelevant!
Not least because you obviously don't believe that the USA is a Christian nation yourself. So what point are you trying to make?
The simple fact is, that you don't have one single SHRED of evidence that Christians in the US are going around killing gays, either now or in the past!

 

No he does not. Are you actually saying that he said, quote, "I personally advocate the death penalty for gays?" You're going to have to state the video time that he says this. In fact, he didn't even come close to saying this. He was saying what his personal interpretation is of a part of the book of Leviticus and a part of the Book of Roman's.

You're going to have to state the video time at which he said, quote, "at the moment" implying that perhaps in the future the policy should be implemented. Here is what he ACTUALLY says. "Then they ask me - yes, but, do you advocate for our civil leaders to do this today? And my answer is NO." He then goes on to say that time is needed for homosexuals (practicing gay sex and who are not Christians) to repent, just like all people who are not Christians. He does not however, say that this "time" will expire, at the end of which, the death penalty for gays should be implemented.

So I'm afraid that you have it all wrong and you are simply believing what you want to believe. Once you discover that none of your quotes actually exist in the video, you'll know how wrong you are.

If he actually hated Christians, wouldn't he want them to NOT repent and burn in hell instead? He wants them, like all of America to repent, because "America needs to repent" (just as does the whole world.)

Swanson has a solid Christian message, he just delivers it in a shockingly unhelpful way.

Given your obvious intelligence, I'm assuming that you're not simply going by liberal/lefty Maddow's summary of what went on,
but instead you heard this "timing" talk yourself from the other speakers at the conference.

If you're honest, you'll say that about yourself after you realise where you have gone so horribly wrong.

Yes please. I'm assuming that included will be the "timing" talk which Maddow referred to. Anything less means that you just blindly accepted Maddow's summary!

What makes you think that I want to "attach the actions and statements" of Swanson to my own personal religious belief?"

I don't agree with everything Swanson says, but that doesn't mean I can't give him a fair hearing.

No question that many have wandered far away from the teachings of Jesus but I'm not convinced that Swanson
is an example. However, the one blatant example are the pieces of human waste over at Westboro Baptist Church.

I have real problem with the term "fundamentalist" because it implies that those who are not considered as or consider themselves fundamentalist are not taking scripture as literal. It isn't a matter of literal vs non literal, but simply one interpretation vs another interpretation, with both being taken literally. Certainly when it comes to homosexuality, I interpret the relevant scripture just as literally as Swanson, just DIFFERENTLY. However, we both don't believe that gays should be killed today. The problem with Swanson is that he is contradicting himself because he believes that the Bible prescribes death for homosexuals but he doesn't believe that homosexuals should be killed. I would certainly like to challenge him on this.

 

You keep talking unclassified NIPR. All I can say is on SIPR and the other network the E-mails use a bulk encryption device. Take that as you will. The protocols remain the same. I'm not talking PGP. PGP on NIPR, fine, but I'm talking other networks.

 

I don't know which opinion you are talking about, but the answer is all of it.

 

Of course! Have you said anything that you believed would change my mind?

 

Maddow used to have some interesting commentary but I can not longer stand her .. or MSNBC in general. That said, I do not think she was lying about the "Kill the gays" rally and the words of Swanson mirrored what she said - and what I said previously which was that Swanson did not state he wanted the death penalty right at this moment - (as many in the audience are wanting which is why he says "many have asked me - referring to why he does not call for the death penalty right now) - instead he says to give some time for repentance - how much time ? That is the question.

If Maddow was lying about the pamphlets she could, and would be, sued for libel. Clearly this did not happen.

As to the question of the "Pamphlets" and some of the other speakers who are less veiled in their support for the death penalty gays gays and other crimes:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/death-penalty-for-gays-literature-at-right-wing-conference/

To me this is human garbage on the exact same level as "Islamist's" An Islamist is someone who wants to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

Some have said to me (Law is not physical violence) so lets dispense with this false claim immediately. Law - by definition - allows the state to punish - through physical violence, imprisonment or even death - those that would violate that Law.

Supporting law that imposes a religious or personal belief on others is then supporting the use of physical violence to impose that belief on others. Full Stop.

There is a difference between 1) having a belief and 2) forcing ones beliefs on others through physical violence.

I am against religious groups (of any kind or denomination) forcing their religious beliefs on others through Law (physical violence). This is against the principle on which this nation was founded and it is against the teachings of Jesus (which are actually very similar).

Not sure if you heard the sermon by the black pastor at the royal wedding over the weekend but - he hit the nail on the head and quoted my favorite passage in the NT. Matt 7:12 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=NIV

The rock on which Jesus bases his teachings is the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have done to you/treat others as you would be treated. aka "The Golden Rule". Jesus says that this rule "sums up the Law and the Prophets" so perhaps we should pay attention to this one.

Jesus restates this rule (probably realizing that people would not get it on the first pass) a number of times. Love neighbor as self, Judge not lest you be judged, take log our of own eye before picking speck out of brothers, Let ye who is without sin cast the first rock ... and so on.

So then - If you do not want others forcing their personal or religious beliefs on you, then do not force yours on others.

The problem with the God of the OT is that this God is clearly not the God of Jesus. The OT God is depicted as a flip flopping xenophobic genocidal God with the most petty of human characteristics. This God makes a law "Children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents" and then contradicts himself shortly after by telling the Israelite's to kill children and babies - because of the sins of their parents.

Fast forward 1000 years or so and it is all "Love neighbor as self" "turn other cheek" "Treat others as you would be treated" Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone - and lets not forget "forgiveness". The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world - mind your own affairs rather than the affairs of others - render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to me what is mine.

Jesus himself violates OT Law. Now where does Jesus advocate that religious belief be forced on others through physical violence (Law - the Law of Man). In fact he advocates the reverse "Judge not - Lest you be Judged" " do unto others as you would have them do to you". Not only does he say this - he says this rule "Sums up the Law and the Prophets" ... Full Stop.

The Swanson goes on to quote Paul. Paul - albeit a man with good intentions most of the time - was not a disciple. He did not become a Christian until years after the death of Jesus and he had little association with the disciples and was not part of the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples and led by James). Paul writing consists of roughly half of the NT yet nowhere in these writings does he show any knowledge of the life of Jesus.

Where does Swanson quote Christ in defense of his position ? Nowhere - because Christ is against his position.

Paul writes nonsense at times. Romans 13 is a prime example

How I understand Paul's intent in writing this - to make Christianity more acceptable to the Romans - but, this is not inspired. The idea that we should submit to the Stalin's and the Mao's of the world "as a matter of conscience" - because these rulers have been put there by God is preposterous nonsense.

Regardless - if one wants to go with Paul in the "kill the gays" question - one is in contradiction with the teachings of Jesus.

If you do not want the religious beliefs of others being force on you and your family through physical violence, then do not do force yours on others through physical violence (Law).

The problem I have with Fundamentalists is when they "speak for God" - "Speaking in tongues" is a prime example.

IMO this is the unforgivable sin - a sin against the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the Logos (mistranslated as "word" in John). While the word "Logos" in Greek can mean "word" - in a religious context it meant "Emissary between man and God" The author of John was trying to expand the appeal of Christianity by using terminology that the Greek speaking audience was familiar with. Every Greek speaking person knew what the term "Logos" meant in a religious context.

Jesus spoke God's word through the Holy Spirit. Jesus was God's word - the Logos. For a human to claim to speak Gods word - as if directly from God like God sat down with them for tea - or through "speaking in tongues" is to usurp the position of Jesus. Pontifex Maximus.

 

It might have lready been mentioned here (I'm late) but Hamas even admitted that 1) 50 to 52 of the killed were terrorist militiamen, and 2) calling it peaceful demonstrations is just a diversionary PR tactic.

 

Not "simply". He was protected by resigning because sitting Presidents can't pardon themselves.

A side note: every time you include in a question things like "simply", "always", "never", "only", etc... a "no" answer will always be implicit. Even if I don't explicitly articulate it. I have told you many times: I tend to be suspicious of absolutes. Keep that in mind because next time you might not see the "Not simply" part (or similar).

 

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about emails. If you are implying that there is some devce using a proprietary encryption protocol, how in the world would they be de-crypted? And I'm talking 2012

If the protocols remain the same as they were in 2012... we're in trouble! But I am pretty sure you're wrong. I don't know for sure, but I bet now emails with classified information are uploaded to a secure webpage that the recipient needs to log into and explicitly download. At a minimum. It did not work that way when Hilary was Secretary of State, though. And even that system is not 100% secure.

See "Cyber War" by Richard Clarke.

 

You cannot live your life by other peoples bad choices. You simple have to look foward long term and do whats best based on the information you have.