lady in above picture also pedo
But get an email labeled fwd fwd fwd HILLARY CLINTON IS A TREASONOUS WHORE, and you parade it about as if it's the truth itself from God's lips to your ear.
How the fuck do you carry a logical discussion on with someone who can pick and choose the reality they adhere to without regard to anything except that they like the way it sounds?
lady in above picture also pedo
Maybe this will help you Renzatic. I am not supporting, nor denying what has been posted before. Just giving you a link you should have found yourself.
Why are TTLGs resident democrats so quiet all of a sudden??
As far as I can tell, nothing in the Wikileaks Podesta archives actively casts guilt on anyone involved in the Uranium One situation. There are a few mentions of the New York Times article, but nothing beyond that as far as I can tell. I'll keep digging.
So Nbohr is refuting Snopes with a blanket statement, while all but refusing any effort to actually illustrate a solid, reasonable explanation for that refutation. As if his word alone, a quick name drop to Wikileaks, and randomly throwing in DKIM verification for...hell, I dunno, street cred, is all he needs to counter Snopes statement. Hate to say it, folks, but stating "oh, well they're the establishment, you can't trust them" doesn't do shit for shit. If you can't provide reasonable proof they're lying, then you shouldn't claim such, and waste our time in the process, because your mere claim is but a wet fart in the wind without that proof to back it up.
It just *had* to be a wet fart, didnt it. LOL
Yes. Yes it did.
I just got over the flu. Wet farts and their consequences are still riding pretty high in my mind.
Meeting with Russians is not an issue, it's the lying that's suspicious.
Also, with all the inane accusations of child sex trafficking thrown at Democrats, it's somewhat ironic that Lord Dampnut's campaign chair for Oklahoma was caught in a motel with an underage boy and faces child prostitution charges.
Last edited by Starker; 22nd Mar 2017 at 22:14.
You have put your stock behind "cited sources" and academic methodologies as the penultimate for maintaining a viable
information culture and keeping the truth in check.
In an idealists vacuum, that would be the "best we can do" and the proper way of going about the evaluation of whether anything
recorded is factual.
Unfortunately, we have seen time and time again that things that were deemed factual for decades have been exposed as lies.
Everyone knows that Institutional biases and dishonesty have wrecked that fever dream before it was ever put to consideration
in the halls of our Journalistic schools.
In fact, with the large Liberal inclination of our Journalist industries, post-modern thought that espouses about the nihilism-of-the-real
should be at the forefront of everyone's mind when covering newsworthy topics. There is a cognitive dissonance where we see on one hand
60 minutes probing a Corporation or Political Group about things that everyone takes as orthodoxy but the "news" has decided is a front
for a hidden truth while on their other shoulder the Morning news team will speak with prepared talking points about how it's "absurd" that Trump (etc)
questions the truthfulness of the deep state, media, and other "hallowed institutions". It used to be that muckraking was the vanguard but now
it has become politically incorrect to expose politicians because those who are being exposed also include powerful figures on the left.
A pure post-modernist who presumes that reality itself is a fiction made of biases and agendas would scoff at such distinctions though (because of their own
lack in belief of objective principles) they would not fault any of the actors for building their own reality where this contradiction is perfectly sane.
In this modern age, where all facts can be manufactured and we war with information what can we use to find any core of truth?
Electronic paper trails.
We can trace the entire chain of any factoid from when it first appeared on the internet and who relayed it, altered it, tried to censor it, etc.
The ultimate jugular of truth comes from those who have deep knowledge of our Network and Computing infrastructure. Those who can create DNS black holes, do IP address spoofing, deploy listeners in OS Hypervisors, use botnets to crack communication streams, etc. The people who can do these things can see what is being said by those who think their words are hidden and can offer a conclusive yes or no about where a source of information come from.
The Government and the Media barely grasp why they are obsolete.
For over a decade now, the hacker community have been the holders of the real information. The problem being is that it's a tiered system. The best hackers hoard the most information (and when I say hackers this includes Information specialist who work for state actors like the NSA, CIA, FBI, Air-force Cyber Division (strangely one of the best) along with white-hats, black-hats, and other more nefarious folks) while other hackers have second-tier information that may or may not be censored, altered, etc by the top tier.
How do you tell which tier is offering you the information?
Here's a good confirmation:
1) Wikileaks released the Vault 7 dump
2) Avira anti-virus patched the zero-day vulnerability that the CIA were using
3) Notepad++ patched their zero-day
4) Government Employees were told not to look a Vault 7 because it contains info that is STILL classified and if they look at it the authorities
will need to scrub the data from their computers and audit the Employees
Compare that rigorous validation standard to "A married couple, paid by Media Matters, googles articles written by left leaning sources to debunk things that are considered dubious in the mainstream media and pop-culture".
The latter may yield some sort of clarity but it pales in comparison to the former.
Last edited by nbohr1more; 23rd Mar 2017 at 09:08.
So why can't we trust the media these days? Well, that's quite simple. The interpersonal monological imperatives present in our current zeitgeist disallow any dissemination of cultural antinorms meant to counter any new modes of alternative thought processes that may or may not introduce elucidating memestreams of information to a blinkered population jaded on the detritus of a broken society that's grown fat suckling at the soured morrow of the dead giants that came before it. Ergo vis-a-vis, the average man only accepts the acceptable because he is predisposed by his very nature to accept the simplest simplicity: that which is always acceptable.
Up until this point, I think I've only ever seen English Lit majors trying to justify their degree dedicate so much time and effort to saying absolutely nothing at all. You've missed your calling, nbohr. You belong in academia!
Now let's simplify things a bit: between the media, who lives and dies by its standards and trustworthiness, and some random kid posting shit on Youtube he made with a pirated copy of Sony Vegas and a few favorite tracks from Selected Ambient Works Vol. II, why should I consider the latter over the former as a more reliable source of information?
Renz is on a goddamn roll
There's a presupposition in the whole "fake news" pomo skepticism zeitgeist thing going on that the world turns on authentic information from a source "we trust".
I think this trend comes from people that don't do fact finding as part of their work, who care more about personalities and motivations than they do about how things operate on the ground, as opposed to, eg, scientists and lawyers. In my experience, what's most important for them isn't knowing bare facts like who did what when, but analysis about the structure in which what's happening occur in, that all but abstract the personalities out of the equation altogether.
So, eg, what often strikes me about wikileaks and its kind is (1) how many of its revelations are already in the public domain or one can figure them out from public sources if a person knew the topic. It's one reason I'm often bemused or roll my eyes at people getting worked up at certain releases when it's surprising to me they didn't already know the issue and the discussion going on about it over the last 30 years. And (2), related to that, how little interest they seem to have in actual analysis over the stuff they are releasing. It's as if just knowing X said Y is the shocking part, when that's usually the most superficial part of the equation for me. I want to know the context and structure of Z within which that happened. And you don't get that from wikileaks. You get that from 9 months of reading 400 page textbooks and journal articles. And then your read the news frpm any and all sources and see the real dynamics that are invisible to everybody else.
That's what my bumper sticker would say for this whole thing.
Like that? I had to shorten it a bit.
ITT - 2 of my absolute favorite rarely used words: penultimate and detritus.
I thought it was a good post nbohr1more, yes it was a very good read. Even though Renz was joking with his replys leadoff paragraph, my ears were perking up! I wish he talked like that more often, cuz that paragraph ROCKED.
So, Trump has an extended lease on a government property with 'contract language specifically says no "elected official of the Government of the United States ... shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom[.]"'. But a Trump-appointed official says its okay because its in a trust - of which Trump is the sole beneficiary. Mm-hmm, a shell game with one shell. Obviously wouldn't hold up in a court of law, but who has standing?