And Mashiki fails to note that they were doing so in order to track the process and thus improve their ability to make arrests.
You mean they were not tracking the process, ignoring informant information, and not doing any arrests. And according to the FOIA requests, the Obama administration went even further and blocked agents from actively perusing investigations against solid leads. Did not inform the Mexican government unlike the Bush administration did, illegally engaged in straw sale purchases, and in the end was so shitty that they "lost" thousands of weapons. Openly discussed and/or blocked ATF lab reports which showed that the weapons that the administration had approved for gunrunning were being used to commit crimes. Which came directly from Holder's office. And attempted to use "executive privilege" in order to block all information on it. Which of course is why it was such a big scandal...unless you watch the US news, in which case they simply brushed it off as nothing. Much like you did, and of course if all that had happened under a Republican president, you would be screaming from the rooftop right now.
Considering that cmd.exe is technically depreciated and is meant to be a "last line" when everything else breaks, that doesn't really make much sense does it. The world moved on from command.com in the early 00's when 16bit went bye-bye from modern OS's.
Oh it's *you*! You're the guy who pulls stuff up out of the depths of his fantasy and when pressed posts heaps of irrelevant or broken links. Still, I'll bite. Why not, eh?
You mean the stuff that's fact, but you refuse to look at it because it comes from sites that don't fit your ideological sphere. Or because it paints things in a bad light, thus you conveniently ignore it.
50 bucks says you can't find a link to somewhere I've done that.
I only have to go back as far as the last two posts between you and me on Milo and Gamergate. In both cases, where I showed you that your position was not only wrong. But the people you were parroting on about, where the actual harassers.
Another 50 bucks says you can't find a link to somewhere I've ever said that either.
Want to try reading again? Well, that might be a much to ask. You can't click on links after all.
What on earth are you talking about? Cliqueball? WTF? Is that where everyone you don't like gets assigned to a "clique" by you and you then declare them all collectively responsible for the actions of the worst person you can find?
Note your own comments in the past and how your viewpoint mirrors some of the most extremist and regressive commentary of the modern left yet? This is a good chance for you to be introspective.
Feminists disagree and criticise each other all the time, just read any of the academic journals, blogs, news sites or attend any talks to see it in action. So the idea that "feminism is infallible" only exists in your mind.
No it really doesn't there. The current 3rd and 4th wave feminists aren't any different then most ideological extremists when they reach their goals. Their entire ideology today can be described as first-world-problems whining. Purge the heretics(including those in their ranks), kill the unbelievers, etc. The current state of feminism can be boiled down to: "If you don't believe in our stuff, we're going to destroy you." And then they go out and in some cases successfully do so. If they're not whining about made-up problems, they're whining about someones shirt and calling it sexist. While ignoring actual inequality, and serious issues with women's rights. All of this of course is the reason why the number of people who claim the feminist label decrease, year after year.
But considering the crap being pushed out by feminists as "good" like "the scientific method is sexist" or "facts are a tool of the patriarchy." I wouldn't actually recommend that.
FYI: It's not an insult, it's an identifier based on extremist pro-authoritarian public posts/speech/etc. In which case, you along with several posters fit right in there. Every single time you whine and cry over words hurting your feelings, and every time someone drops a load of facts on you. Your first responses are to either try and shift it away from the topic at hand, or go running to your safe space never to mention it again.
Topping that off that your actions and words also seem to support the "no bad tactics, just bad targets" lines of reasoning, especially by the people who's ideas you use to promote. That just makes you a rather shitty person.
You really want to see something? You really want to try in your next post to claim that SJW has lot all meaning(the current talking point)? Note how many times you and the cliqueball have used racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist, and so on over the last 6-7 years and how it's not only led to those words losing all meaning, but people now see you as people who cry wolf. And thus you created your own enemy like authoritarians everywhere.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act.
You mean besides the ability to get to the top based on skills? Why do I have a feeling you're one of those people that believes meritocracy is a MRA construct.
And there's the sexist. Funny how many people seem to think that the mentality of the 1950's and earlier is just so progressive these days. Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
Courts seem to disagree with that. Plenty of cases where a company has sold it self with misrepresentation and the courts levying against the previous owners. While there's indeed a case for a company doing due diligence, when a company has sat on an egregious problem and misrepresent themselves to a prospective buyer that goes out the window.
How cute! You think your laws have more than a cursory impact on multinational data brokers...
Considering that privacy laws start at $100k/day and cap at $30k/customer(these fines are cumulative) and the laws here in Canada(and under writ by parliament they can go as high as $10m/day) are tough enough that they made Facebook and Google back down and get in compliance? Yeah, seems to be working just fine.
Why not update your privacy laws? We already have all of this in Canada. It's covered in either a blanket law or individual country laws in most of the EU too.
You're making the assumption that media is liberal because most people who worked in media are Democrats. A half-dozen corporations own the US media market, and corporations tend to be conservative organizations.
I'm not making an assumption. There's numerous studies, reports, personal polling and so on that show that the media is *democrat* not liberal. If it was liberal, most people wouldn't have a problem with it. The trust of the press wouldn't be under 20%(in some cases under 10%) and declining. A liberal press doesn't push anti-liberal ideas, it doesn't push democrat party talking points, and it doesn't push regressive ideas that belong in the 1950's or earlier as liberal enlightening ideas.
I see corporations with active hand in shaping the media. If it leads, it bleeds. Why do you think the media was so eager to cheer George W.'s war in Iraq?
Really? I guess that's why they spent 7.5 years doing nothing but complaining about it and parading every single coffin that came back, despite that more soldiers died under Obama's government then under Bush's. Or why various media organizations have teams dedicated to attacking only one political organization, in some cases only single candidates despite having national reach.
Donald Trump made the assumption that Lester Holt, the NBC moderator for the first debate, was a Democrat. Holt is actually a registered Republican.
And that has what do to do about the topic at hand? Besides you trying to shift things.
What you see in the general media is a corporate echo chamber that pounces on anything and everything to drive up ratings. If Trump behaves himself after the next debate by not tweeting at 3AM in the morning, the media might go back to making up stuff about Hillary's health.
No, what you see is the democrats having an active hand in the media. Or did you forget that the Obama administration was directly leaning on reporters and media organizations by denying them access, or that multiple media organizations(as shown by the DNC leaks), were publishing both DNC and Obama administration talking points as original reporting. In some cases going as far as to directly sending stories to the DNC for reviewing to ensure they comply with their viewpoint.
Yeah, and you're the type of person who'd say that there are no connections when 10+ outlets suddenly all come out yesterday with exactly the same talking points about Pence and his non-2020 campaign. Or that 90% of beltway reporters either vote democrat or are registered democrats, or that 80% or so of reporters in general are democrats. Even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. There might be right-wing talking points, but there sure is a democrat echo chamber.
The only shocking thing here is that the hackers seem to think that people see Buzzfeed as a source of real news.
That's because it *is* treated as real news, it's also considered a reliable source on sites like Wikipedia. While political sites with original reporting like Washington Examiner aren't considered reliable.
Is this why Hillary Clinton declared war against Pepe?
Probably, it's also the reason she's all for the infantilization of academia and supports safe-spaces and trigger warnings for "scary" things. After all, Pepe wasn't a hate symbol until Donald Trump used it. Well that, and the Clinton Campaign wrote an article on it, based off an article where the author was trolled so hard that despite the troll standing on the bridge and saying "I'm a troll, suckers" they still ran with it.
Now, Trump is still free to sue them, but it should be a difficult case to win. And nothing is stopping Trump from rambling on at three in the morning about how awful/sad/whatever the Times is.
But that's about all he can do.
Well he's right about the Times being awful/sad/whatever. Since they were right up there lauding him with huge heaping's of praise for doing exactly what he did in 1995/1996. Which should tell you just how far invested they are in Clinton.
Trump's already threatened legal action against the New York Times for releasing a couple pages of his tax returns from years ago. He'd likely lose that lawsuit, mind you, even if it actually comes to that, but Trump is opposed to anything that shows him in a light other than the one he projects.
No reason why he shouldn't either. Keep in mind that his tax returns aren't public record anymore then yours are or mine are.
And hell, I honestly consider Trump to be the more dangerous candidate when it comes to a free and open press. Hell, he's said he wants to make it easier to sue publications if they publish something he doesn't like.
You mean easier to sue publications that publish things that are a lie. Like the a-typical clickbait, full of lies type of garbage that most of the media is publishing these days? Or the "we're gonna scour social media, ruin someones life, and when they get bullied/lose their job/commit suicide over it" that the media is running wild with these days. Oh I can see how people would be upset over that, especially people who work for companies like Gawker, Buzzfeed, or Huffington Post.
Facts have a reality bias you mean? If you're trusting a newspaper that operates a "fact checking" organization aka politifact, and you're unwilling or simply willing to believe whatever they shove in front of you...well you're the perfect ignorant voter they're looking for.
Do you understand what insults are? I guess not. And no, that's not racist. Well I suppose it is racist, if you're a special snowflake and see a person doing a particular job and assign a race to it. Nice ad-hom though, always a great hallmark of the left. FYI your comment doesn't fall into the insult category either.
Seems like to me the media is pretty damned desperate. What's the date by the way? Oh November 4th you say? I guess WAPO is right. Oh October 4th....how silly of me.
FYI politifact is about as biased as you can get. They go out of their way to push an agenda, and even when something is true and makes their team look bad they'll double down and mark it as fake.
Considering that 8chan pretty much started 3 years ago and is now one in the top 5k boards in the US and top 10k worldwide, they seem to be doing okay.
Slashdot Mirror
And Mashiki fails to note that they were doing so in order to track the process and thus improve their ability to make arrests.
You mean they were not tracking the process, ignoring informant information, and not doing any arrests. And according to the FOIA requests, the Obama administration went even further and blocked agents from actively perusing investigations against solid leads. Did not inform the Mexican government unlike the Bush administration did, illegally engaged in straw sale purchases, and in the end was so shitty that they "lost" thousands of weapons. Openly discussed and/or blocked ATF lab reports which showed that the weapons that the administration had approved for gunrunning were being used to commit crimes. Which came directly from Holder's office. And attempted to use "executive privilege" in order to block all information on it. Which of course is why it was such a big scandal...unless you watch the US news, in which case they simply brushed it off as nothing. Much like you did, and of course if all that had happened under a Republican president, you would be screaming from the rooftop right now.
But much like Yeland Lee(who was gunrunning as well FYI also a democrat), the only difference between the two is that no one in the Obama administration actually went to prison over it.
US law enforcement should work for US interests.
Well they do, the problem is that the current government doesn't work for US interests. This is where I'll remind you that the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico, and them ending back up in the US in the hands of criminals or cartel members illegally in the US.
Considering that cmd.exe is technically depreciated and is meant to be a "last line" when everything else breaks, that doesn't really make much sense does it. The world moved on from command.com in the early 00's when 16bit went bye-bye from modern OS's.
Oh it's *you*! You're the guy who pulls stuff up out of the depths of his fantasy and when pressed posts heaps of irrelevant or broken links. Still, I'll bite. Why not, eh?
You mean the stuff that's fact, but you refuse to look at it because it comes from sites that don't fit your ideological sphere. Or because it paints things in a bad light, thus you conveniently ignore it.
50 bucks says you can't find a link to somewhere I've done that.
I only have to go back as far as the last two posts between you and me on Milo and Gamergate. In both cases, where I showed you that your position was not only wrong. But the people you were parroting on about, where the actual harassers.
Another 50 bucks says you can't find a link to somewhere I've ever said that either.
Want to try reading again? Well, that might be a much to ask. You can't click on links after all.
What on earth are you talking about? Cliqueball? WTF? Is that where everyone you don't like gets assigned to a "clique" by you and you then declare them all collectively responsible for the actions of the worst person you can find?
Note your own comments in the past and how your viewpoint mirrors some of the most extremist and regressive commentary of the modern left yet? This is a good chance for you to be introspective.
Feminists disagree and criticise each other all the time, just read any of the academic journals, blogs, news sites or attend any talks to see it in action. So the idea that "feminism is infallible" only exists in your mind.
No it really doesn't there. The current 3rd and 4th wave feminists aren't any different then most ideological extremists when they reach their goals. Their entire ideology today can be described as first-world-problems whining. Purge the heretics(including those in their ranks), kill the unbelievers, etc. The current state of feminism can be boiled down to: "If you don't believe in our stuff, we're going to destroy you." And then they go out and in some cases successfully do so. If they're not whining about made-up problems, they're whining about someones shirt and calling it sexist. While ignoring actual inequality, and serious issues with women's rights. All of this of course is the reason why the number of people who claim the feminist label decrease, year after year.
But considering the crap being pushed out by feminists as "good" like "the scientific method is sexist" or "facts are a tool of the patriarchy." I wouldn't actually recommend that.
FYI: It's not an insult, it's an identifier based on extremist pro-authoritarian public posts/speech/etc. In which case, you along with several posters fit right in there. Every single time you whine and cry over words hurting your feelings, and every time someone drops a load of facts on you. Your first responses are to either try and shift it away from the topic at hand, or go running to your safe space never to mention it again.
Topping that off that your actions and words also seem to support the "no bad tactics, just bad targets" lines of reasoning, especially by the people who's ideas you use to promote. That just makes you a rather shitty person.
You really want to see something? You really want to try in your next post to claim that SJW has lot all meaning(the current talking point)? Note how many times you and the cliqueball have used racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynist, and so on over the last 6-7 years and how it's not only led to those words losing all meaning, but people now see you as people who cry wolf. And thus you created your own enemy like authoritarians everywhere.
Check these guys out at the Nevada Trump rally:
FYI, they've already been discovered as CTR shills. Bet you didn't see that on the news anywhere.
And there it is: that simple little word "merit". It can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to, and thus legitimates almost any act.
You mean besides the ability to get to the top based on skills? Why do I have a feeling you're one of those people that believes meritocracy is a MRA construct.
And there's the sexist. Funny how many people seem to think that the mentality of the 1950's and earlier is just so progressive these days. Then want to turn the world from one where only merit matters to the same one that existed prior to the civil rights act, equality acts, and so on.
Courts seem to disagree with that. Plenty of cases where a company has sold it self with misrepresentation and the courts levying against the previous owners. While there's indeed a case for a company doing due diligence, when a company has sat on an egregious problem and misrepresent themselves to a prospective buyer that goes out the window.
How cute! You think your laws have more than a cursory impact on multinational data brokers...
Considering that privacy laws start at $100k/day and cap at $30k/customer(these fines are cumulative) and the laws here in Canada(and under writ by parliament they can go as high as $10m/day) are tough enough that they made Facebook and Google back down and get in compliance? Yeah, seems to be working just fine.
Why not update your privacy laws? We already have all of this in Canada. It's covered in either a blanket law or individual country laws in most of the EU too.
You're making the assumption that media is liberal because most people who worked in media are Democrats. A half-dozen corporations own the US media market, and corporations tend to be conservative organizations.
I'm not making an assumption. There's numerous studies, reports, personal polling and so on that show that the media is *democrat* not liberal. If it was liberal, most people wouldn't have a problem with it. The trust of the press wouldn't be under 20%(in some cases under 10%) and declining. A liberal press doesn't push anti-liberal ideas, it doesn't push democrat party talking points, and it doesn't push regressive ideas that belong in the 1950's or earlier as liberal enlightening ideas.
I see corporations with active hand in shaping the media. If it leads, it bleeds. Why do you think the media was so eager to cheer George W.'s war in Iraq?
Really? I guess that's why they spent 7.5 years doing nothing but complaining about it and parading every single coffin that came back, despite that more soldiers died under Obama's government then under Bush's. Or why various media organizations have teams dedicated to attacking only one political organization, in some cases only single candidates despite having national reach.
Donald Trump made the assumption that Lester Holt, the NBC moderator for the first debate, was a Democrat. Holt is actually a registered Republican.
And that has what do to do about the topic at hand? Besides you trying to shift things.
What you see in the general media is a corporate echo chamber that pounces on anything and everything to drive up ratings. If Trump behaves himself after the next debate by not tweeting at 3AM in the morning, the media might go back to making up stuff about Hillary's health.
No, what you see is the democrats having an active hand in the media. Or did you forget that the Obama administration was directly leaning on reporters and media organizations by denying them access, or that multiple media organizations(as shown by the DNC leaks), were publishing both DNC and Obama administration talking points as original reporting. In some cases going as far as to directly sending stories to the DNC for reviewing to ensure they comply with their viewpoint.
Yeah, and you're the type of person who'd say that there are no connections when 10+ outlets suddenly all come out yesterday with exactly the same talking points about Pence and his non-2020 campaign. Or that 90% of beltway reporters either vote democrat or are registered democrats, or that 80% or so of reporters in general are democrats. Even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. There might be right-wing talking points, but there sure is a democrat echo chamber.
The only shocking thing here is that the hackers seem to think that people see Buzzfeed as a source of real news.
That's because it *is* treated as real news, it's also considered a reliable source on sites like Wikipedia. While political sites with original reporting like Washington Examiner aren't considered reliable.
Is this why Hillary Clinton declared war against Pepe?
Probably, it's also the reason she's all for the infantilization of academia and supports safe-spaces and trigger warnings for "scary" things. After all, Pepe wasn't a hate symbol until Donald Trump used it. Well that, and the Clinton Campaign wrote an article on it, based off an article where the author was trolled so hard that despite the troll standing on the bridge and saying "I'm a troll, suckers" they still ran with it.
Now, Trump is still free to sue them, but it should be a difficult case to win. And nothing is stopping Trump from rambling on at three in the morning about how awful/sad/whatever the Times is.
But that's about all he can do.
Well he's right about the Times being awful/sad/whatever. Since they were right up there lauding him with huge heaping's of praise for doing exactly what he did in 1995/1996. Which should tell you just how far invested they are in Clinton.
Trump's already threatened legal action against the New York Times for releasing a couple pages of his tax returns from years ago. He'd likely lose that lawsuit, mind you, even if it actually comes to that, but Trump is opposed to anything that shows him in a light other than the one he projects.
No reason why he shouldn't either. Keep in mind that his tax returns aren't public record anymore then yours are or mine are.
And hell, I honestly consider Trump to be the more dangerous candidate when it comes to a free and open press. Hell, he's said he wants to make it easier to sue publications if they publish something he doesn't like.
You mean easier to sue publications that publish things that are a lie. Like the a-typical clickbait, full of lies type of garbage that most of the media is publishing these days? Or the "we're gonna scour social media, ruin someones life, and when they get bullied/lose their job/commit suicide over it" that the media is running wild with these days. Oh I can see how people would be upset over that, especially people who work for companies like Gawker, Buzzfeed, or Huffington Post.
Facts have a reality bias you mean? If you're trusting a newspaper that operates a "fact checking" organization aka politifact, and you're unwilling or simply willing to believe whatever they shove in front of you...well you're the perfect ignorant voter they're looking for.
Do you understand what insults are? I guess not. And no, that's not racist. Well I suppose it is racist, if you're a special snowflake and see a person doing a particular job and assign a race to it. Nice ad-hom though, always a great hallmark of the left. FYI your comment doesn't fall into the insult category either.
Seems like to me the media is pretty damned desperate. What's the date by the way? Oh November 4th you say? I guess WAPO is right. Oh October 4th....how silly of me.
FYI politifact is about as biased as you can get. They go out of their way to push an agenda, and even when something is true and makes their team look bad they'll double down and mark it as fake.
Considering that 8chan pretty much started 3 years ago and is now one in the top 5k boards in the US and top 10k worldwide, they seem to be doing okay.