12

13 comments

[–] ScorpioGlitch -2 points (+0|-2)

Great, then you support each time operatives were killed in foreign countries because some moron politician said too much on TV, right? Because that's what happens when you have all that transparency.

[–] Justintoxicated 1 points (+1|-0)

Great, then you support each time operatives were killed in foreign countries because some moron politician said too much on TV, right?

I said nothing of the sort. You are making a strawman out of my comment.

Because that's what happens when you have all that transparency.

Look everyone knows that certain secretive operations are necessary and we have long list of them, just look at the history of the Dulles brothers. Total transparency can't be a thing as it gives away our strategic/tactical advantages. However transparency as far as how many of domestic matters including information concerning our elections and information on how tax dollars are spent/how effectively they're being used (the DoD and Pentagon have topline budgets so they do not produce insight into any ongoing operations which could endanger lives) are well within the scope of information that the public should have access to.

because some moron politician said too much on TV, right?

Look if a politician reveals national secrets related to ongoing operations that's called incompetence, that's on them.

[–] ScorpioGlitch -1 points (+0|-1)

You've made my point for me. But in case it was lost in the translation... You didn't quantify how much transparency. Without a quantity, it is reasonable to assume "all." For example: "Sweep the floor" is much different from "Sweep the east corner of the floor."

So not at all a strawman. Just taking you 100% at your word.

[–] Justintoxicated 1 points (+1|-0)

You didn't quantify how much transparency. Without a quantity, it is reasonable to assume "all."

First of all this is pure and ludicrous semantics, if everyone was to to specifically define everything they say/type down to lowest level of interpretation all the time conversation would be completely incoherent (i.e. autism). Also your assertion that "all" is a reasonable assumption when concerning such a broad reaching topic may be a reasonable within sets of fringe belief systems/groups who utilize ham-fisted "all or nothing" ideologies, but to assume the average rational person thinks that way is rather unreasonable.

So not at all a strawman

Absolutely a strawman, you took a lack of information to create an assumption and then manufactured a position based on a lack of evidence.

So what is your argument against the declassification of election documents?