Posted by raucous on 5/5/2016 11:54:00 AM (view original):
She gave our enemies all of our government secrets. Shouldn't she be charged with treason?

I think your definition of the word "all" might be a bit problematic...

Well, for that matter, "gave" is taking poetic license with the word.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 5:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 2:28:00 PM (view original):
How do you know the server wasn't encrypted and behind a firewall?

Do you know that is was?

And where do you think a server would be more secure, both physically and from a hardware/software/network security perspective? In a private home, or in a secure government facility?

I think it's safe to assume that her server was behind a firewall. I dont think anyone is worried about physical security. Chinese hackers aren't breaking into Clinton's house.

I'll admit that I'm not a networking and firewall expert, but I sit around 10 feet away from somebody who is. And I'm pretty sure that there's a difference between the firewall software you buy for $69 at Best Buy, and the firewall software that the federal government likely uses for the servers under their jurisdiction.

Can you provide any technical details about the firewall that Hillary used on her server? Or are you just pulling **** out of your *** with your assumptions?

You're also making assumptions.

I'm guessing that it's more likely than not that the ******* United States Secretary of State hired professionals to set up the server.

All guesses and assumptions, with no facts.

Let's try this: what do you think is more likely to be better secured: a server presumably set up by unidentified "professionals" at a private residence, or a server set up, hosted and supported at a federal government facility?

And all you have are guesses with no facts. Do you think her personal server was actually breached?

Whether or not the server was actually breached is irrelevant. What's important is if her server was more exposed to the risk of being breached than if it was an "official" government server hosted in a federal facility due to her (pick one): (a) carelessness, or (b) blatant disregard for following best practice computer security protocols.

And the answer to that is: most likely, it was.

Those apparently are among the qualities you find acceptable in your Presidential candidate of choice.

Good job.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry told CNN Thursday he will support Donald Trump as the Republican presidential nominee and will do everything he can do to help him get elected.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 5:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 2:28:00 PM (view original):
How do you know the server wasn't encrypted and behind a firewall?

Do you know that is was?

And where do you think a server would be more secure, both physically and from a hardware/software/network security perspective? In a private home, or in a secure government facility?

I think it's safe to assume that her server was behind a firewall. I dont think anyone is worried about physical security. Chinese hackers aren't breaking into Clinton's house.

I'll admit that I'm not a networking and firewall expert, but I sit around 10 feet away from somebody who is. And I'm pretty sure that there's a difference between the firewall software you buy for $69 at Best Buy, and the firewall software that the federal government likely uses for the servers under their jurisdiction.

Can you provide any technical details about the firewall that Hillary used on her server? Or are you just pulling **** out of your *** with your assumptions?

You're also making assumptions.

I'm guessing that it's more likely than not that the ******* United States Secretary of State hired professionals to set up the server.

All guesses and assumptions, with no facts.

Let's try this: what do you think is more likely to be better secured: a server presumably set up by unidentified "professionals" at a private residence, or a server set up, hosted and supported at a federal government facility?

And all you have are guesses with no facts. Do you think her personal server was actually breached?

Whether or not the server was actually breached is irrelevant. What's important is if her server was more exposed to the risk of being breached than if it was an "official" government server hosted in a federal facility due to her (pick one): (a) carelessness, or (b) blatant disregard for following best practice computer security protocols.

And the answer to that is: most likely, it was.

Those apparently are among the qualities you find acceptable in your Presidential candidate of choice.

Good job.

You say most likely, but you really have no idea, right?

In terms of electability, which is realistically all about future returns, tec's point is entirely valid: whether or not confidential information was actually accessed by America's enemies is not important. So who cares if you know if it was? That's an irrelevant detail.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 11:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 9:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 5:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 3:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/5/2016 2:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/5/2016 2:28:00 PM (view original):
How do you know the server wasn't encrypted and behind a firewall?

Do you know that is was?

And where do you think a server would be more secure, both physically and from a hardware/software/network security perspective? In a private home, or in a secure government facility?

I think it's safe to assume that her server was behind a firewall. I dont think anyone is worried about physical security. Chinese hackers aren't breaking into Clinton's house.

I'll admit that I'm not a networking and firewall expert, but I sit around 10 feet away from somebody who is. And I'm pretty sure that there's a difference between the firewall software you buy for $69 at Best Buy, and the firewall software that the federal government likely uses for the servers under their jurisdiction.

Can you provide any technical details about the firewall that Hillary used on her server? Or are you just pulling **** out of your *** with your assumptions?

You're also making assumptions.

I'm guessing that it's more likely than not that the ******* United States Secretary of State hired professionals to set up the server.

All guesses and assumptions, with no facts.

Let's try this: what do you think is more likely to be better secured: a server presumably set up by unidentified "professionals" at a private residence, or a server set up, hosted and supported at a federal government facility?

And all you have are guesses with no facts. Do you think her personal server was actually breached?

Whether or not the server was actually breached is irrelevant. What's important is if her server was more exposed to the risk of being breached than if it was an "official" government server hosted in a federal facility due to her (pick one): (a) carelessness, or (b) blatant disregard for following best practice computer security protocols.

And the answer to that is: most likely, it was.

Those apparently are among the qualities you find acceptable in your Presidential candidate of choice.

Good job.

You say most likely, but you really have no idea, right?

Common sense says: more likely than not.

Do you agree or disagree? Or are you going to continue to dance around the issue.

Good one ^^

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/5/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):
In terms of electability, which is realistically all about future returns, tec's point is entirely valid: whether or not confidential information was actually accessed by America's enemies is not important. So who cares if you know if it was? That's an irrelevant detail.

BL, you have to realize that you have a losing argument if even dahs is agreeing with me.

Paul Ryan is still hoping to be the nominee, or he is voting for Hillary like the liberal turd that he is.

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/5/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):
In terms of electability, which is realistically all about future returns, tec's point is entirely valid: whether or not confidential information was actually accessed by America's enemies is not important. So who cares if you know if it was? That's an irrelevant detail.

While I agree with the premise that doing something bad is bad, regardless of whether or not it is actually damaging, I don't agree that the server is automatically a bad thing.

I think this is just another politicized witch hunt.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/6/2016 12:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dahsdebater on 5/5/2016 11:57:00 PM (view original):
In terms of electability, which is realistically all about future returns, tec's point is entirely valid: whether or not confidential information was actually accessed by America's enemies is not important. So who cares if you know if it was? That's an irrelevant detail.

While I agree with the premise that doing something bad is bad, regardless of whether or not it is actually damaging, I don't agree that the server is automatically a bad thing.

I think this is just another politicized witch hunt.

So Obama's Department of Justice is carrying out a politicized witch hunt against Hillary Clinton?

Remind me again, who was President when Hillary was SoS?