(11-15-2019 11:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 10:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 07:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-14-2019 10:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No pretzel, just straightforward thinking.

Once you eliminate the "stolen" part that you imagined(and that you claimed made the difference), it is a clear 1:1.

But connecting imaginary dots seems to be a democratic art form the last four years. Adam Schiff is a Master (or is that a Magister?) at it.

Once you ignore the crime that was proven to have been committed? Really?

Really, rich, a Democrat whining about a crime being ignored.

Yes, Virginia, too bad somebody stole those emails. But the person revealing them was not the thief. Trump was not the thief, nor was he in collusion to steal them. So, ...? In both cases people had their private communications made public against their will. Seems like a parallel to me. Exactly like revenge porn, which apparently you think is OK if one party decides to take them public.

Equating personal emails without sensitive personal information to pornography is laughable, and I’m surprised you think they are equal.

Does that mean hunting is the same as murder because in both cases a living being is killed?

Now you are equating rabbits to humans?

Talk about a pretzel.

In both of the cases I mention, somebody’s private communications are made public by the recipient. You think one case is wonderful, the other terrible, purely on partisan grounds.

In one case, someone stole them (illegal) and in the other case, someone published emails they were CC'd on.

You're trying to equate emails with pornography to try and rationalize why it is bad to publish communications without consent. The issue is that communications and pornography are not the same thing.

Do you really believe they are the same exact thing? Do you think that our justice system views written words and pornographic images similarly?