You didn't watch the tv show called manhunt Unabomber.
It wasn't the manifesto, rather they wanted to publish the letters he wrote. Besides they wouldn't have had the need to publish the whole manifesto to accomplish what they wanted.
Some investigators did want to publish it, but the majority didn't. It was published to save lives after a lot of debate and finally only to save lives.
Because the professional media is progressing in tandem with how progressively worse everything else is. To think otherwise is to be corralled by them and others. The media these days is horrible. I'd want to hear other views, as always.
There's a purpose behind placing videos on YouTube besides the daily headlines.
YouTube is as good a place as any other as all others could do the same as google. Google is demonstrating a pattern, a history, of manipulating results.
Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments? How on Earth do you enforce any of it?
What law, BTW? What law says that they can't post political ads?
What about Hillary's campaign working with Ukraine on getting the dirt on Trump? How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies? How about once an intelligence agent then always an intelligence agent?
At what point do you cease allowing the political party a say on when and what will be enforced?
Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads, even ones considered manipulative. Agreeing to rules without fighting means they are allowing the authorities to determine what we see and hear. Fighting those rules is the only right thing to do.
Besides, every bit of this Facebook outrage means that the left doesn't believe Americans have brains enough to make a proper adult decisions. Hell with that attitude why even allow Americans to vote at all?
Stop with the bullshit responses meant to attack others rather than discuss the facts. You sound hysterical.
Show us one iota of actual evidence that proves anything that you believe about the Russians, just one single thing. The only limit is that you can't use the press/media reports as evidence.
You can't do it. You have no idea what happened. You haven't been given a spec of evidence from the justice system nor has anything been proven through a prosecution.
Everyone should read the book called "The Smear" by Sharyl Attkisson. Chapter 1 gives a very good overview of the tactics of the leftist, how they formulated those tactics, and the extent they'll go in using them.
Back in the 50s we had a red scare movement that destroyed a lot of innocent lives. It would have been better that we learn from history so we don't make the same mistakes. It looks like some are eager to make those mistakes again only to compound on them because it meets their biased political agenda. That red scare movement was branded as McCarthyism. Decades later it was condemned as unpatriotic and un-American, and rightfully so.
There's been no evidence whatsoever that has been presented to the American people that demonstrates that the Russian government was responsible for the hacks into the DNC, nor Podesta's emails. In fact, Comey admitted that the Russians had nothing to do with the Podesta breach. He said this before congress in testimony under oath.
The Obama administration stated that Russians had hacked our election. He said that all 17 Intelligence agencies had given their concurrence with high confidence.
Before congress, James Clapper, who was the head of the DNI, admitted that only 3 agencies had signed off this assessment, not 17.
In the summary that was released to the press only 3 agencies were listed. That summary had a banner at the top that essentially stated that nothing contained therein should be construed as evidence or fact.
One of those agencies, the DHS, didn't sign off. They were only quoted. The second, the NSA (which is under Clapper) gave the report moderate confidence. The FBI, which isn't even an intelligence agency, was the only entity that gave the report high confidence and it turns out that they didn't even look at the DNC servers instead they relied on a 3rd party private entity hired and paid by the DNC. The FBI was repeatedly denied access to the servers.
Either you can go all rabid following the talking points of the left or you can put forth a real effort to try to understand what happened. We have newspapers tossing out unsubstantiated unsupported inferences to circumstances that then publish those as if they are fact.
Similar to the democrat's agenda in invalidating the 2016 presidential election with accusations of Russian interference, the 2018 mid-term elections were hacked in favor of Hillary Clinton's party by the Chinese and Ukrainian governments.
There's no evidence that the Russian government did a damn thing. We have seen absolutely zero evidence supporting the supposition by the DNC that Russia hacked the election, which is an absurd notion, with all claims so far publicly made debunked. Even the original claim by Obama was found to be inaccurate. Only 3 agencies signed off on the claim that Russia hacked the election, not all, and certainly not 17. Of those 3 only one gave it high confidence contrary to Obama's claims and that agency is not an intelligence agency and it never investigated the hack directly.
Slashdot Mirror
I just noticed that people are conflating to demote the view that the mainstream media is letting us down.
The view that any opposing view is conspiratorial is really a tactic to delegitimze.
People need to read the book called The Smear. Chapter 1 will clarify a lot of what happens in government and the media.
You didn't watch the tv show called manhunt Unabomber.
It wasn't the manifesto, rather they wanted to publish the letters he wrote. Besides they wouldn't have had the need to publish the whole manifesto to accomplish what they wanted.
Some investigators did want to publish it, but the majority didn't. It was published to save lives after a lot of debate and finally only to save lives.
Because the professional media is progressing in tandem with how progressively worse everything else is. To think otherwise is to be corralled by them and others. The media these days is horrible. I'd want to hear other views, as always.
There's a purpose behind placing videos on YouTube besides the daily headlines.
YouTube is as good a place as any other as all others could do the same as google. Google is demonstrating a pattern, a history, of manipulating results.
Manipulation of this sort is wrong. I'm not into conspiracies but I know this manipulation is just wrong.
If they can do it they will do it to anything that they don't like. What they don't like is irrelevant.
It is no longer youtube when you don't choose.
In today's world, good journalism? That's a good one. That's rich.
Including having the UK Parliament publicly make statements about Trump's mental health and or fitness for office before the election? How about that? How about the US media that aired those abusive statements and comments? How on Earth do you enforce any of it?
What law, BTW? What law says that they can't post political ads?
What about Hillary's campaign working with Ukraine on getting the dirt on Trump? How about the Hillary campaign using a business that paid for the dirty dossier generated by an ex member of the UK intelligence agencies? How about once an intelligence agent then always an intelligence agent?
At what point do you cease allowing the political party a say on when and what will be enforced?
Nothing is illegal about Russians buying ads, even ones considered manipulative. Agreeing to rules without fighting means they are allowing the authorities to determine what we see and hear. Fighting those rules is the only right thing to do.
Besides, every bit of this Facebook outrage means that the left doesn't believe Americans have brains enough to make a proper adult decisions. Hell with that attitude why even allow Americans to vote at all?
Stop with the bullshit responses meant to attack others rather than discuss the facts. You sound hysterical.
Show us one iota of actual evidence that proves anything that you believe about the Russians, just one single thing. The only limit is that you can't use the press/media reports as evidence.
You can't do it. You have no idea what happened. You haven't been given a spec of evidence from the justice system nor has anything been proven through a prosecution.
Everyone should read the book called "The Smear" by Sharyl Attkisson. Chapter 1 gives a very good overview of the tactics of the leftist, how they formulated those tactics, and the extent they'll go in using them.
Back in the 50s we had a red scare movement that destroyed a lot of innocent lives. It would have been better that we learn from history so we don't make the same mistakes. It looks like some are eager to make those mistakes again only to compound on them because it meets their biased political agenda. That red scare movement was branded as McCarthyism. Decades later it was condemned as unpatriotic and un-American, and rightfully so.
There's been no evidence whatsoever that has been presented to the American people that demonstrates that the Russian government was responsible for the hacks into the DNC, nor Podesta's emails. In fact, Comey admitted that the Russians had nothing to do with the Podesta breach. He said this before congress in testimony under oath.
The Obama administration stated that Russians had hacked our election. He said that all 17 Intelligence agencies had given their concurrence with high confidence.
Before congress, James Clapper, who was the head of the DNI, admitted that only 3 agencies had signed off this assessment, not 17.
In the summary that was released to the press only 3 agencies were listed. That summary had a banner at the top that essentially stated that nothing contained therein should be construed as evidence or fact.
One of those agencies, the DHS, didn't sign off. They were only quoted. The second, the NSA (which is under Clapper) gave the report moderate confidence. The FBI, which isn't even an intelligence agency, was the only entity that gave the report high confidence and it turns out that they didn't even look at the DNC servers instead they relied on a 3rd party private entity hired and paid by the DNC. The FBI was repeatedly denied access to the servers.
Either you can go all rabid following the talking points of the left or you can put forth a real effort to try to understand what happened. We have newspapers tossing out unsubstantiated unsupported inferences to circumstances that then publish those as if they are fact.
Can you show us even just a single piece of actual evidence of this that isn't some news article? Just one piece.
All bogus and inflated fact scarce leftist talking points.
Prove any one of those with actual true facts without using news articles.
These are valid accurate statements/questions. He should not be downvotes.
If the US press lies during the election cycles then isn't that election interference?
There's a compulsory license BTW. The artists have no legal basis for a complaint even though they may have the right to express moral objections.
Shall we start the conspiracy now?
Similar to the democrat's agenda in invalidating the 2016 presidential election with accusations of Russian interference, the 2018 mid-term elections were hacked in favor of Hillary Clinton's party by the Chinese and Ukrainian governments.
No. What I wrote was accurate.
You simply participated in McCarthyism tactics.
Bullshit.
There's no evidence that the Russian government did a damn thing. We have seen absolutely zero evidence supporting the supposition by the DNC that Russia hacked the election, which is an absurd notion, with all claims so far publicly made debunked. Even the original claim by Obama was found to be inaccurate. Only 3 agencies signed off on the claim that Russia hacked the election, not all, and certainly not 17. Of those 3 only one gave it high confidence contrary to Obama's claims and that agency is not an intelligence agency and it never investigated the hack directly.
The massive barage of ads and other media propaganda by CNN alone didn't override the influence of 10 million people seeing 1 ad?
More proof of the bogus red scare created by the left.
Why not 2 or 3, or 10 or 15? How exactly did you arrive at your factor?
An ad that was presented isn't necessarily seen. Just because an ad appears during a football game doesn't mean everyone watched it.
Everything he said is patently false.
Trump won by a notable amount of electoral college votes. Hillary got the popular because of a couple states that she won, most notably CA and NY.
The difference is that you know catwoman is a criminal and you only laugh at what the joker may have done.
You think it is bad here. On reddit the CEO edits the posts of users.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.theverge.com/2016/...
Russians are entitled to place ads even politically derisive ones.
No one has proven these were placed by the Russian government, which also isnt illegal.
Zuckerberg is a Democrat and as someone with political aspirations he has every reason to follow the DNC narrative.
This is a win all round for Facebook as they can say that $100,000 nets you effective influence over 10,000,000 people.
All still supposition and it mischaracterized the actual situation with over simplification.
I couldn't agree more. These people shouldn't be using Google services if they need enhanced security.
I'd say that just using Windows is a security risk.