The Goat Pen

aTm wrote:WTF?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 04727.html

I said WTF about 8 times reading that

Lot of talk today about the Assange interview from Sean Hannity.

I haven't finished watching it but very early on Hannity asks him - did you get the information from Russia

and Assange doesn't say no, but he give the impression of categorically saying no - his answer is "I did not get the information from the Russian government or Russian state"

but he doesn't say the information didn't come from Russia

maybe that is splitting hairs but just like our Anon, 4chan and others around the world, Russia has some pretty serious organized hackers who its easy to believe would fear a Hillary Clinton presidency just as much as the Russian Government.

anyways, I thought the way he answered was interesting.

later in the interview Hannity says "and the American government accuses Wikileaks of getting their information from Russia and you say it did not come from Russia..." Assange doesn't rephrase it, he answers that Obama is acting like a lawyer, saying that Russia is trying to influence the election but not directly tying Russia to Wikileaks/Assange

Its 40 minutes but its interesting
[youtube]qaHlN6Jm8X4[/youtube]

http://www.lexigraboski.com/photos?ligh ... m-ivebo2cx

I didn't say wtf 8 times

I did google lexi

you have to have your priorities

In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

crashcourse wrote:http://www.lexigraboski.com/photos?ligh ... m-ivebo2cx

I didn't say wtf 8 times

I did google lexi

you have to have your priorities

I'm so jaded if its not pictures of her fucking a midget while doing a girl dressed like a nun, I'm not interested

eCat wrote:

aTm wrote:WTF?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 04727.html

I said WTF about 8 times reading that

Basically the rest of the world is catching up with CNNSI.com message boards, circa 2000. It's just one online war after another spilling over into real life. There are now legions of Byrons, Wandas and Meccas out there just now figuring out what we knew when Bill Clinton was still president.

crashcourse wrote:http://www.lexigraboski.com/photos?ligh ... m-ivebo2cx

I didn't say wtf 8 times

I did google lexi

you have to have your priorities

Well done.

eCat wrote:In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

I've been grinding on this capitalism shit, I didn't realize that the New England electric grid story was fake. That's crazy.

Saint wrote:

eCat wrote:

aTm wrote:WTF?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic ... 04727.html

I said WTF about 8 times reading that

Basically the rest of the world is catching up with CNNSI.com message boards, circa 2000. It's just one online war after another spilling over into real life. There are now legions of Byrons, Wandas and Meccas out there just now figuring out what we knew when Bill Clinton was still president.

what basketball team ended up being the porn section because they didn't have any fans? Wasn't it Florida St?

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote:In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.

I've been grinding on this capitalism shit, I didn't realize that the New England electric grid story was fake. That's crazy.

I only heard a little about it in passing - that it was really malware on someone's laptop like any of us get from time to time
Hearing Assange deny it was the Russians today led me to that article.

crashcourse wrote:http://www.lexigraboski.com/photos?ligh ... m-ivebo2cx

I didn't say wtf 8 times

I did google lexi

you have to have your priorities

Man, that was disappointing. Those breastages represented a lot better in that DNC counterespionage site...

eCat wrote:

what basketball team ended up being the porn section because they didn't have any fans? Wasn't it Florida St?

Not sure. Florida St. became the politics thread here because of the 2000 election. I just remember bouncing around the UNC, UK and Duke threads. Sometimes Louisville but that always meant an interaction with Mecca.

Another reason why Trump won.....

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/04/us/chicag ... index.html


Now wait. It isn't the fact that it was 4 black people beating one white person...OH NO NO NO NO good people.

This is what I am referring to and why people were just fed up with this kind of shit:

READY?

Hate crime charges under consideration

The victim knew at least one of his accused attackers from school, Cmdr. Kevin Duffin said. Though he may have voluntarily gotten into a van with the group, police are considering kidnapping charges.Because the victim is white and the people in the video are black, police also are investigating whether hate crime charges are appropriate, Duffin said.
"Although they are adults, they're 18. Kids make stupid decisions -- I shouldn't call them kids; they're legally adults, but they're young adults, and they make stupid decisions," Duffin said. "That certainly will be part of whether or not ... we seek a hate crime, to determine whether or not this is sincere or just stupid ranting and raving."

Are you kidding me????!!?? This should 100% be a hate crime. Had the opposite happen, you bet your sweet ass BLM, Al Shaprton, and Obama would be on the television screaming about it.

BUT THEY MIGHT CONSIDER CHARGING HATE CRIME? CONSIDER?!?

Just sweet hairy bullshit.

Jesus, dude.

Nevermind. You won't read it.

Enlighten me. How is that NOT a hate crime? If I am wrong or you change my mind, I will acknowledge it.

It's not about the hate crime (even though that term has always been dubious to me, regardless of the race or ideology of the perpetrator). It may well be a hate crime. Regardless, it definitely was a crime. My frustration is about pointing out individual crime and punishment stories like it's the tenor and tone of how things are adjudicated in this country. We could go on a link battle of stories of fucked up actions, by fucked up people where the judicial system did something totally fucked up about it. I just think your linkage to that story and the associated commentary about "[this is] why people were just fed up with this kind of shit" is incorrect. Now, I'm not saying people don't feel that way (fed up), but it is incorrect to say or insinuate that the way this case seems to be playing out is the prevailing approach in the justice system. The data is pretty clear about how sentencing, convictions and legal interactions line up along racial lines. Very clear.

To me, the link and the editorial you put on it is selective and anecdotal and not really expository in a valuable way.

Okay that is fair and I get what you are saying. To be fair though pointing out individual things that have happened is what most groups do? I mean BLM was quick to jump on cops killing black men but crickets when it comes to overall murder rate of black people in Chicago? Maybe it is how the media covers it and that is what I am frustrated with.

However, do you agree or not that if the roles were different, this would be a different news story??

Again, maybe I am off but it just feels that way.

It just seems pointless to get upset about "charges under deliberation." Why not save the outrage when a decision is made? Of course, after that the DA could then refuse to take a hate crime charge to a grand jury. Or the grand jury themselves could say take out the hate crime part. Or the jury trial judge could take out the hate crime charge. Plenty of opportunities to get all wound up. Hey, there could even be a mistrial - same as that South Carolina back-shooting murderer cop got..

two days into a new session and abortion is already a priority

The GOP are some dense motherfuckers

that said, its time for planned parenthood to punt on this - make some deal to keep funding to give out birth control, education programs and check for STDS, etc., otherwise the GOP is going to cut them off at the knees.

story about a bad comedian who keeps getting interviewed as a representative for millennials. He is 55 years old.

The story is pretty blah but apparently the reason he can spread this lie about his age is because of this website
https://www.helpareporter.com/

which pretty much sums up why the media sucks. A database of sources so you can get any person (supposedly with reputable credentials) to say anything you want to be said

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... edian.html