Random Politics & Religion #00

So let me get this straight.
This woman had a job.
She refuses to do the job.
Court steps in and says "do the job".
Woman still won't do the job.
Now court sends her to jail for not doing the job?
Since when was having a job something enforced by law?
Don't do your job = fired
Don't do your job should not = go to jail.
This isn't Soviet Russia FFS.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton said on Friday she was sorry that her use of a personal email account while secretary of state caused confusion, in her most contrite comments yet about an issue that is plaguing her White House bid.

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner ahead of the November 2016 presidential election, did not apologize for her own behavior but said she was wrong not to use a government email account when she was serving as the nation's top diplomat.

"At the end of the day I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions but there are answers to all these questions," she told MSNBC in an interview.

Clinton has faced steady criticism from political opponents since it emerged in March that she used her own email account on an unsecured private server in her New York home for official business, rather than a government-issued email address.

"I certainly wish that I had made a different choice and I know why the American people have questions about it," Clinton said. "I take responsibility. I should have had two accounts, one for personal and one for work-related," she said.

Doubts over Clinton's trustworthiness have damaged her poll numbers, allowing liberal Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to narrow the gap with her as the first nominating contests for the election approach early next year.

Clinton said that while she should have behaved differently, she had done nothing wrong. "It was allowed and it was fully above board. The people in the government knew that I was using a personal account," she said.

The FBI is now investigating the security of the private server and any classified information on it.

Liberal use of industry terms incorrectly... "Unsecured" refers to encryption, access, etc, not that it wasn't located in a secured government building.

So you are saying that her private email server had equal or better security than the US government?

Also, it was shown that her email server was vulnerable to hackers...

But I'm sure you would still say this is a faux scandal....

I said nothing about it being a faux scandal, I'm talking strictly about the misuse of the term. Is it less secure than the government servers? Physically, most certainly. But, the obscurity of it's location on the web is a big feather in it's cap, and every connected device is vulnerable to hackers.

People that say "it was vulnerable to hackers" or "unsecured private server" really have no clue what they're talking about, they're just reciting what some other tool said because it sounds good.

I'm not saying that her email was "physically" hacked. But are you saying that it was protected by the same firewall and other security measures as other .gov emails?

Seems like it to me.

Strange, this coming from you.

Makes you sound like a hypocrite, since you like to toss buzz words all the time....

it's complete ignorance to say "unsecured" or "vulnerable to hackers".

Everything is vulnerable if it's connected, period.

It is almost certainly less secure than the government servers

Hard to tell if Jassik is arguing with himself or with KN. I don't think he cares as long as he is splitting hairs or arguing something pointless.

You agree that the security on her entire email setup was substandard and reckless.

Having spent a fair amount of time in my career with government contracts, I'd be pretty surprised if this were the case.

Hard to tell if Jassik is arguing with himself or with KN. I don't think he cares as long as he is splitting hairs or arguing something pointless.

You agree that the security on her entire email setup was substandard and reckless.

Hilary's emails have no impact on how I feel about her personally

Personally, I still don't care and it wouldn't impact my likelihood of voting for her or not.

Unless the person was actively sharing our nations secrets and not just violating protocol. Then there's no reason to go nuts like we are. Its only because of who she is.

Considering how we are hacked by China. I think using a personal server or Blackberry is nothing to go nuts over.

I agree with Rooks in that private entities are more aware of their security than government.

Unless the person was actively sharing our nations secrets and not just violating protocol. Then there's no reason to go nuts like we are. Its only because of who she is.

I agree with Rooks in that private entities are more aware of their security than government.

That's not quite what I said.

The ones that give a ***about security? Yes, they are, because the have the agility to do the right thing, not the regulation-defined thing.

Most private enterprises are as bad or worse, because they either don't care, or don't know. The regulations are good for gov't security in this sense. The ceiling isn't as high but there's a minimum floor.

You are so partisan that to you this has to be the case.
News flash I'm not like you.

Of course I wouldn't. I'd have to care.

Any other fun remarks?