On 10/20/2016 08:56 AM, Kevin Gallagher wrote:
This is an interesting argument.
For clarification on your opinion, do their children have private lives or have they been forced into the spotlight based on nothing but who their parents happen to be?
Let me put it this way. The warmongering bitch so-called progressive liberals will vote for probably hahahaha-ed about the drone assassination death of anwar al-Awalaki's 19 year old son who'd never been charged with a crime. (more recently that Yemeni taxicab driver who just happened to pick up the WRONG person) Does that hint at my answer your question how I feel about the human scum offered up as US dictators-of-corporate policy and their corporatist bffs, and their right to privacy? Get this. Fascist HAVE NO RIGHTS (because they grant you none you can really exercise freely, usefully) and that fucking well includes their right to have private, cf. CONSPIRATORIAL, lives. So Kevin... In light of the above. A question for you. Is it considered unusual to think politicians need to be held to a HIGHER STANDARD needing DIFFERENT RULES if they're going to have relegated and delegated power over our lives? RR
On 10/20/2016 11:30 AM, Razer wrote:
On 10/19/2016 12:45 PM, grarpamp wrote:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/19/is-disclosure-of-podestas-emails-a-step-... youtube-dl https://soundcloud.com/the_intercept/disclosure_glennnaomi_v1
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone’s personal emails.
That's the downside of having power in a corporatist shitstem and it applies to their whore politicians too. Hillary Clinton is a public person in a high profile position. She HAS NO "Personal emails" afaic. Just like a corporate director has to get up at 3 am while in mid-fuck of some prostitute he hired for the night and get on a plane to 'put out a fire' threatening the corporation, someone whose secretary of state or president HAS NO PRIVATE LIFE.
Nor should they.
Rr