Megyn Kelly asks Bill Burton a simple question about emails

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The government has set up a mechanism where it encourages citizens to provide personally identifiable information about those who don't like what that government is doing.

As has been said, if Bush had done it he'd have been dumped on and with good cause. Of course the Obamapologists consider this no big deal, which isn't the least surprising. No neocon stood by his President right or wrong any better.

Congrats.

Incorrect. They have asked to receive the kinds of misinformation that Citizens have been receiving. Something completely different than your Innuendo.

Did I make an innuendo? Ok, let me be clearer. People will cut and paste and link to web pages. They won't be saying "I heard something, but I'm not going to say where I heard it." People aren't that scrupulous as a rule. Now if you are going to try to escape that by appealing to literalism, there will certainly be some who will just be asking questions, however you know how the internet works. Personally identifiable information will be received and kept, and the interviewee went to extraordinary lengths to not acknowledge that obvious fact. In truth, he pretended the question didn't exist.

He could have said "we have the messages people send us, and we are required to keep them intact by law, but we aren't going to act against or use the power of government to intimidate whose who disagree with us". A definitive statement.

By not making such a statement, it leaves open the question of possible retribution against those identified.

You can deny it, but I defy you to show anything said in this interview which contradicts my statement. Use his words and defend him if you can.

Lol, you're being paranoid.

The best way to evade a logical argument is to belittle it. I say again, what was said in this interview that would give credence to your claim, and discredit my contention?

Why the evasion? Am I so beyond them that I can say something they cannot? No indeed, yet here is it. I can do what they cannot, or will not.

A child knows such gross deception and obfuscation because he has not taught himself to lie in order to make the world conform to what he would have it be.

It's a great shame that many adults have.

All you need do to prove me wrong is to use his words as spoken to reassure us that I am mistaken.

Is that so difficult?

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

What he should have said then is "I don't beat my wife", instead of saying "Rest assured that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that I've beaten my wife", or "I've never been convicted of any crime of violence"

I gave an answer which would have addressed the issue in a positive way. Concise and direct with no wiggle room. After that, he could have said "I've provided a rational and complete answer to any reasonable concern. There is no need to repeat it. Next."

There is no downside to how I would have answered, but there is the fact that he would not do the same. He wasn't answering her question, he was addressing the question asked by many. He had the opportunity to respond in a way that would have done the administration credit but deliberately chose to act as if the question was never asked. The choice we are given is to believe that the option of retribution is potentially in play or that we're led by a confederacy of dunces. Neither looks particularly flattering. Of course one can pretend along, but that line of reasoning is easily countered.

I'm not categorically stating that Obama will abuse the power of government, but he's gone to extraordinary lengths to not reassure us of that fact.

That is my concern. Something so easily put to rest kept alive by refusing to rule it out explicitly.

That's essentially what he was saying. he and others in this thread were/are insisting on "Yes/No".

Like I said, paranoia.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

How and why did the whitehouse send out propaganda to private citizen's E-mail addresses.

Answer the question.

How, Outlook or some other Program.

Why, to answer peoples enquiries, just as the program was designed to do.

Question answered: Where's the Proof that there's an insidious Intent here?

Answer the question.

I'm not claiming insidious intent, I'm claiming information gathering regarding E-mail addresses (as already proven).

The why is left to interpretation but we've seen this before with other dictators and to believe otherwise shows ignorance.

Paranoia.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: sandorski

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

How and why did the whitehouse send out propaganda to private citizen's E-mail addresses.

Answer the question.

How, Outlook or some other Program.

Why, to answer peoples enquiries, just as the program was designed to do.

Question answered: Where's the Proof that there's an insidious Intent here?

Answer the question.

I'm not claiming insidious intent, I'm claiming information gathering regarding E-mail addresses (as already proven).

The why is left to interpretation but we've seen this before with other dictators and to believe otherwise shows ignorance.

Paranoia.

What you mean is people who have studied history and won't let it happen again.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

I'm beginning to think that Sandorski and Burton have a shared interest in remaining obtuse.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
I'm beginning to think that Sandorski and Burton have a shared interest in remaining obtuse.

Oh, we're the "Obtuse" are we? Interesting thought.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: sandorski

He was answering the Innuendo. There is no Enemies list, there's no desire for an Enemies List, he wasn't going to give the answer that made the Interviewer seem justified in claiming there was an Enemies List.

The question is akin to the old: Have you stopped beating your Wife yet?

What he should have said then is "I don't beat my wife", instead of saying "Rest assured that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that I've beaten my wife", or "I've never been convicted of any crime of violence"

I gave an answer which would have addressed the issue in a positive way. Concise and direct with no wiggle room. After that, he could have said "I've provided a rational and complete answer to any reasonable concern. There is no need to repeat it. Next."

There is no downside to how I would have answered, but there is the fact that he would not do the same. He wasn't answering her question, he was addressing the question asked by many. He had the opportunity to respond in a way that would have done the administration credit but deliberately chose to act as if the question was never asked. The choice we are given is to believe that the option of retribution is potentially in play or that we're led by a confederacy of dunces. Neither looks particularly flattering. Of course one can pretend along, but that line of reasoning is easily countered.

I'm not categorically stating that Obama will abuse the power of government, but he's gone to extraordinary lengths to not reassure us of that fact.

That is my concern. Something so easily put to rest kept alive by refusing to rule it out explicitly.

That's essentially what he was saying. he and others in this thread were/are insisting on "Yes/No".

Like I said, paranoia.

"Essentially" is not definitive. And youre right...what we want is a yes, or a no. Why is that so difficult? It was a yes/no question.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider


What he should have said then is "I don't beat my wife", instead of saying "Rest assured that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that I've beaten my wife", or "I've never been convicted of any crime of violence"

I gave an answer which would have addressed the issue in a positive way. Concise and direct with no wiggle room. After that, he could have said "I've provided a rational and complete answer to any reasonable concern. There is no need to repeat it. Next."

There is no downside to how I would have answered, but there is the fact that he would not do the same. He wasn't answering her question, he was addressing the question asked by many. He had the opportunity to respond in a way that would have done the administration credit but deliberately chose to act as if the question was never asked. The choice we are given is to believe that the option of retribution is potentially in play or that we're led by a confederacy of dunces. Neither looks particularly flattering. Of course one can pretend along, but that line of reasoning is easily countered.

I'm not categorically stating that Obama will abuse the power of government, but he's gone to extraordinary lengths to not reassure us of that fact.

That is my concern. Something so easily put to rest kept alive by refusing to rule it out explicitly.

That's essentially what he was saying. he and others in this thread were/are insisting on "Yes/No".

Like I said, paranoia.

"Essentially" is not definitive. And youre right...what we want is a yes, or a no. Why is that so difficult? It was a yes/no question.

Yes or No---Have you quit beating your Wife?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider


What he should have said then is "I don't beat my wife", instead of saying "Rest assured that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that I've beaten my wife", or "I've never been convicted of any crime of violence"

I gave an answer which would have addressed the issue in a positive way. Concise and direct with no wiggle room. After that, he could have said "I've provided a rational and complete answer to any reasonable concern. There is no need to repeat it. Next."

There is no downside to how I would have answered, but there is the fact that he would not do the same. He wasn't answering her question, he was addressing the question asked by many. He had the opportunity to respond in a way that would have done the administration credit but deliberately chose to act as if the question was never asked. The choice we are given is to believe that the option of retribution is potentially in play or that we're led by a confederacy of dunces. Neither looks particularly flattering. Of course one can pretend along, but that line of reasoning is easily countered.

I'm not categorically stating that Obama will abuse the power of government, but he's gone to extraordinary lengths to not reassure us of that fact.

That is my concern. Something so easily put to rest kept alive by refusing to rule it out explicitly.

That's essentially what he was saying. he and others in this thread were/are insisting on "Yes/No".

Like I said, paranoia.

"Essentially" is not definitive. And youre right...what we want is a yes, or a no. Why is that so difficult? It was a yes/no question.

Yes or No---Have you quit beating your Wife?

I'll as soon as you answer if you've stopped molesting 5 year olds hows that :roll:

Itsa not the same thing man. The question was: whether or not the White House is deleting forwarded email addresses. Its not a trick question, and not one where any answer would show guilt.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider


What he should have said then is "I don't beat my wife", instead of saying "Rest assured that no one has ever been able to demonstrate that I've beaten my wife", or "I've never been convicted of any crime of violence"

I gave an answer which would have addressed the issue in a positive way. Concise and direct with no wiggle room. After that, he could have said "I've provided a rational and complete answer to any reasonable concern. There is no need to repeat it. Next."

There is no downside to how I would have answered, but there is the fact that he would not do the same. He wasn't answering her question, he was addressing the question asked by many. He had the opportunity to respond in a way that would have done the administration credit but deliberately chose to act as if the question was never asked. The choice we are given is to believe that the option of retribution is potentially in play or that we're led by a confederacy of dunces. Neither looks particularly flattering. Of course one can pretend along, but that line of reasoning is easily countered.

I'm not categorically stating that Obama will abuse the power of government, but he's gone to extraordinary lengths to not reassure us of that fact.

That is my concern. Something so easily put to rest kept alive by refusing to rule it out explicitly.

That's essentially what he was saying. he and others in this thread were/are insisting on "Yes/No".

Like I said, paranoia.

"Essentially" is not definitive. And youre right...what we want is a yes, or a no. Why is that so difficult? It was a yes/no question.

Yes or No---Have you quit beating your Wife?

I'll as soon as you answer if you've stopped molesting 5 year olds hows that :roll:

Itsa not the same thing man. The question was: whether or not the White House is deleting forwarded email addresses. Its not a trick question, and not one where any answer would show guilt.

Then why the question?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Then why the question?

Are you serious? Where have you been? One answer would show guilt, one wouldnt. Whats so difficult? lol

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not so sure why this is so difficult concept to grasp.

He didn't address the question at all. If someone believes otherwise then use HIS words to show that he did.

If he lied then he would have been asked how he could have legally edited them.

If he answered "yes" then the next question would have been "what will the WH do with that information.

By ignoring the first part he avoided the second.

A transparently childish trick.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Bill Burton makes Robert Gibbs look like a genius, why is it so hard to tell the truth?



Video

thier both, babbling, two faced morons /rant

Don`t you mean their all three( including the Op of this thread) babbling two faaced morons...

Run along little troll.

Says the guy who has an internet drop under his bridge. You are way out of your league here little boy, and btw, learn how to multiquote your inane one line responses.

 

[Patranus]

LOL

So the White Hour claims that these email addresses were added to "the list" by out side groups.

On the same day, the administration disables the "flag@whitehouse.gov" feature.

Hhhhuummmmmm......

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Patranus
LOL

So the White Hour claims that these email addresses were added to "the list" by out side groups.

On the same day, the administration disables the "flag@whitehouse.gov" feature.

Hhhhuummmmmm......

*waves obama hand like a Jedi*
There's nothing funny going on here. You don't want to look more into these activities.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Patranus
LOL

So the White Hour claims that these email addresses were added to "the list" by out side groups.

On the same day, the administration disables the "flag@whitehouse.gov" feature.

Hhhhuummmmmm......

*waves obama hand like a Jedi*
There's nothing funny going on here. You don't want to look more into these activities.

Thats their newest trick-dismantle that which never existed. Would make Criss Angel proud

 

[jonks]

He should've just said "I don't recall" a few hundred times.