The Goat Pen

Absolutely. I’d love to see Comey’s signature on that FISA application, whose only evidence is the Pee Pee Dossier, and show that next to his own testimony before Congress calling it “salacious and unverified.” I used to think Comey was hapless. He has now proven himself just as much a crook as the rest of the FBI/DOJ coups cabal.

Tree, I’m not sure why you are so obsessed with Sean Hannity. As per usual, you are factually confused. I don’t even like the guy, much less listen to him. He’s nasally and whiny, sorta like a male Fran Drescher. The last time I tried to listen to him was during Obama’s first election, he couldn’t finish a sentence without repeating “Bill Ayers! Bernadine Dorn!” like a parrot.

If I were to become a regular talk radio listener, which I’m not now, Hannity wouldn’t even make my top ten list of talkers I’d want to hear.

"The last time I tried to listen to him was during Obama’s first election, he couldn’t finish a sentence without repeating “Bill Ayers! Bernadine Dorn!” like a parrot."

Certainly you have adopted the repeating parrot method as the primary, nay, sole weapon in your dialectical arsenal...

I wish you were a parrot that I could hunt with a non-dialectical weapon.

I tried to like Tucker whatsisname on Fox, which was the first attempt to watch anything on Fox

started out liking it but he brings on such lower run and/or whacko liberals that its like shooting fish in a barrel for him so I quit after about 4 shows.

I never cared for Hannity, he was a dick to the Ron Paul people in 2008

eCat wrote:I never cared for Hannity, he was a dick to the Ron Paul people in 2008

I didn’t know that. Then that’s the best reason of all not to like Hannity.

Besides his cunt face

started out liking it but he brings on such lower run and/or whacko liberals that its like shooting fish in a barrel for him so I quit after about 4 shows.

They do the same with Hannity. The caliber of folks that are brought in that he can actually beat in a debate is hilarious.

Tree wrote:

started out liking it but he brings on such lower run and/or whacko liberals that its like shooting fish in a barrel for him so I quit after about 4 shows.

They do the same with Hannity. The caliber of folks that are brought in that he can actually beat in a debate is hilarious.

that isn't exclusive to Fox. MSNBC is the same way. They are all catering to their audience.

meet the press major garrett after cbs this morning seems to be my only political show I watch

just read a long ass story about Facebook and how it was manipulated. The story takes in all kinds of different angles as Facebook tried to figure things out but the heart of it is

early in the election cycle, Facebook employees were asking Zuckerburg what role Facebook had in insuring Hillary was elected - or more specifically defeating Trump.

As you can imagine that went over poorly once the story broke and Facebook tooks steps to show they would never compromise pro-conservative stories.

The second thing they did was fired a bunch of veteran journalist who proofed the stories in favor of an algorithm that was focused more on tying newsfeeds of friends and families together. The algorithm was written by software engineers who had no concerns about what the truth, what negative, or who was actually saying it.

The final thing is that facebook was aware that the Russians were manipulating trending stories by pretending to be political players - like a support group for Bernie Sanders. Supposedly they contacted the FBI who wasn't fully prepared to understand/address the severity of "weaponizing" social media. Facebook themselves didn't understand just how much manipulation was going on , not just by the Russians but just anyone who was savvy enough to create a believable lie that would go viral on their platform.

Ultimately Facebook started out with the attitude they weren't responsible for the content and got drilled for it.

its long but a good read

https://www.wired.com/story/inside-face ... s-of-hell/

the serious news players are trying to push a message that the only news you can trust is behind a pay wall.

Seriously, why hasn't someone come up with an alternative to Facebook?

Too bad Orkut got overrun by Brazilians. That would have been a great place by now.

facebook lost more people than signed up for the first time last quarter

the current generation of kids and college students are abandoning it because its been taken over by grandmothers.

the current generation of kids and college students are abandoning it because its been taken over by grandmothers.

Also, facebook wasn't featuring enough on porn, tattoos, video games and the imminent climate apocalypse.

http://www.thefacebook.com = legend

http://www.facebook.com = teh suck

https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columni ... 1.16646643
America is split on so many things, but if the actions of our representatives in Washington last July were any indication, most of us could at least agree on one thing: Russia needs to pay a high price for trying to subvert our democracy in 2016. Sanctions would act as both punishment and deterrent.

Are things so bad that we can’t even agree on that anymore? Is defending our nation from a historic and malevolent adversary less important than circling the wagons around a president who, inexplicably, and at every turn, coddles Russia’s leadership?

We’re about find out. Listen for the silence.

William F. B. O’Reilly is a consultant to Republicans

Congress and all of our intelligence agencies clamor for us to hit back at Putin's Russia , but one key person won't go along with it. Anybody have an opinion on why that is?

My take: Trump has seen the polls, he knows the majority of Americans think he's trying to obstruct the Russia probe, therefore he'd reasonably want to appear tough on the Kremlin...but he just can't. The Russians hold something over on him and he's not willing to test Putin's ire AT ALL. Not even with a discouraging word or two. The very same guy that compares our intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany. That just ain't normal, right? You'd almost think Putin would let the Donald throw at least a mild tantrum about meddling, at least for the sake of the show.

The Russians hold something over on him...

After a year of The Great American Red Scare of 2017, there is STILL no evidence to support the above assertion.

The very same guy that compares our intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany.

He is not comparing the entirety of our agencies to those of Nazi Germany. He is comparing the activities of the leaders of the FBI and DOJ with the activities of totalitarian law enforcement regimes. The KGB and Gestapo were official national government law enforcement agencies that dictators used to spy on any political opposition. That is precisely what the top leadership of Obama's FBI and DOJ were doing to the Trump campaign.

Obama's DOJ and FBI leaders knowingly used fake "intelligence" to spy on the presidential campaign of the opposing party.

BOOM. Just like that. A great big fact. And it is a fact supported by plenty of REAL evidence, e.g. the Hillary campaign admits THEY PAID for the fake intelligence that made it all possible. Even Nixon didn't have the audacity to use his own FBI and DOJ spy on the McGovern campaign. Maybe there were just some things that violated even J. Edgar Hoover's moral compass. But spying on your party's political opposition didn't seem to bother Comey or Lynch.

That just ain't normal, right?

What ain't normal is the Left's complete comfort with what happened. The last time a president spied on the presidential campaign of the other party, the Left actually said that was ... I dunno.... bad? But not now. They act like it doesn't matter. If in 2020, the Trump re-election campaign pays for fake dossier that says Elizabeth Warren is involved in human trafficking, and pro-Trump partisan toadies leading his FBI and DOJ knowingly use that fake document to spy on Elizabeth Warren's campaign, the Left will act like it matters. They will be rioting in the streets.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... eitur.html

Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction; the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement.

Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes.

Translation: We let some people slide now since we can just take their money. We'll have to really spend resources busting them to get that sweet sweet caaiiish if this change is made.

Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?

WTF? Transalation: Why should we even bother to try and catch bad guys if there is nothing in it for us!?

Also...stolen property rings? Lemme guess...that shit all just goes into the swag pile instead of...you know, actually returning it to the owner?

that's horrible

That's law enforcement...