McGee Return TD Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, McGee Return TD said: True The claims are that the FISA warrant against Page (and possibly others) was obtained with an improper application which failed to disclose certain information and included false information. Then it was extended 3 times and possibly without the necessary additional evidence. That's the rub. Trump and his DOJ aren't bitching that we have a FISA process. They're bitching that the process deliberately wasn't followed correctly. Edited June 3, 2019 by keepthefaith 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 14 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: The claims are that the FISA warrant against Page (and possibly others) was obtained with an improper application which included a failure to disclose certain information and the inclusion of false information. Then it was extended 3 times and possibly without the necessary additional evidence. That's the rub. Trump and his DOJ aren't bitching that we have a FISA process. They're bitching that the process deliberately wasn't followed correctly. mandate scopes and pedantic close-ups shift and alter as a matter progresses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 21 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: The claims are that the FISA warrant against Page (and possibly others) was obtained with an improper application which included a failure to disclose certain information and the inclusion of false information. Then it was extended 3 times and possibly without the necessary additional evidence. That's the rub. Trump and his DOJ aren't bitching that we have a FISA process. They're bitching that the process deliberately wasn't followed correctly. And both Amash and Gary are leaving out very big changes made to the FISC and FISA process while renewing the 702 program. More are coming on the heels of what Barr will uncover as well. But honesty isn't important to Gary. Never has been. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And both Amash and Gary are leaving out very big changes made to the FISC and FISA process while renewing the 702 program. More are coming on the heels of what Barr will uncover as well. But honesty isn't important to Gary. Never has been. Gary? I thought he was the former poster 26Copy/Paste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Gary? I thought he was the former poster 26Copy/Paste? I don't think so. I always got along w 26 and even when we would debate it was always cordial. This is Gary or Ben imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Might be Ben then. 26CP seemed to me was always curt and rude to a point. Could be Ben's back with a bug up his arse because things just haven't turned out the way he hoped and thought they would. Regardless, they're a WOB (wast of bandwidth) that are adding zero to the dialogue here. Just throwing shite about process and sources that they don't care for. That and a TDS-like fixation on Q and "conspiracies." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 Game on. Twitter is shitting their pants at this news as well. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 OUCH 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 35 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Game on. Twitter is shitting their pants at this news as well. bust them into smithereens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: bust them into smithereens I just really don't know what that looks like ultimately though. Social media isn't Ma Bell, they can't just break up the companies into smaller companies that do the same thing and think that will solve the problem. I'm really curious to see what the aftermath/plan is in that regard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 46 minutes ago, Nanker said: Might be Ben then. 26CP seemed to me was always curt and rude to a point. Could be Ben's back with a bug up his arse because things just haven't turned out the way he hoped and thought they would. Regardless, they're a WOB (wast of bandwidth) that are adding zero to the dialogue here. Just throwing shite about process and sources that they don't care for. That and a TDS-like fixation on Q and "conspiracies." Ben was Beginner's Mind if I remember. There's too many of these people playing the name game to keep them straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I just really don't know what that looks like ultimately though. Social media isn't Ma Bell, they can't just break up the companies into smaller companies that do the same thing and think that will solve the problem. I'm really curious to see what the aftermath/plan is in that regard. Regulators don't know what to do either. In all these cases they will look to past examples, which obviously won't fit in the Internet age landscape. My guess is that they will put in some kind of a Chinese wall between the social network plumbing and the advertising & sales departments. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I just really don't know what that looks like ultimately though. Social media isn't Ma Bell, they can't just break up the companies into smaller companies that do the same thing and think that will solve the problem. I'm really curious to see what the aftermath/plan is in that regard. Facebook buys up everything and anything that might be considered competition. On the one hand, they are a private company, and should be able to since they have the money to do so. There are people who develop strictly to be purchased by Facebook (and other big tech/social/search). Kinda hard to tell these companies/people they should not do that. On the other hand, Facebook is the social behemoth that ate... everything. Heck when G+ couldn't complete (lots of reasons for that, but they still couldn't dent Facebook), who can? That does stifle speech and creativity in this day and age. As for Google... there are search engine alternatives in yahoo & bing (which actually have worked with Google on some projects - so separate, unequal, and yet still in the mud together) , Pinterest, duckduckgo, etc. So while Google is definitely the biggest search player (by far), it is that Google controls so many of the ads we all see online that may be of greater concern. They are responsible for delivering over 80% of all ad content online (last figure I saw was 85% - could be up or down from that). That is a LOT of monetary control via affiliates, as well as another avenue of speech control when those ads are not accepted (we won't even get into how they know what ad to target to what user). Edited to add: there are a lot of sites that Google will not allow ads on which could be the argument for free speech. If it is legal, and google had such a stranglehold on ads (revenue streams), why isn't it discrimination to not allow accept those sites to host ads? And Google buys up stuff left and right too (why Google was allowed to by Youtube when they were one of the top 3 "search engines", I will never know). They are not saints in any way. Should these giants be broken up? While I do not have a strong opinion either way, my weak opinion says: probably. And it will be painful in the beginning if they are. But long term, it may be for the best for speech, creativity, competition, and the future of the internet. Edited June 3, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 Well, for starters they could make Facebook divest Instagram in whole. How did that one ever get approved? Google could/should give up Youtube. Google the search and destroy engine should be separated from G-Suite. Amazon's Alexa integration should be separated in some manner that doesn't allow listening in on in-home conversations and should be separated from the Amazon virtual BigBox Store. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 Uh-oh Direct ties to Bill Clinton: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Uh-oh Direct ties to Bill Clinton: Lecher Club? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 (edited) For clarity as to who's who in that picture: (The picture had improper labels -- my fault / corrected) Note, this is a picture of people vacationing together. Friends. The picture shared by Gary/Ben in the Russia thread of Trump/Nadler is one anyone can get with Trump at his events during the 2016 election. One is not like the other. The relationship between Trump/Nadler is non existent whereas the relationship between Bill and Nadler goes back decades. Be careful of programmed NPCs thinking they know what they're talking about. And, per the Mueller report, Nadler was working with both campaigns: Someone is being pressured to flip. CORRECTIVE EDIT: The picture of them in the water has improper labels. There are two George Naders, both connected to Clinton, both visited Epstein Island with Bill per the flight records -- but the Nader in the previously included picture is the other Nader. This is on me, apologies! Edited June 4, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Updated information 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Uh-oh Direct ties to Bill Clinton: Boy ! Young girls can really hold their breath, can't they ? . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 28 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: For clarity as to who's who in that picture: Note, this is a picture of people vacationing together. Friends. The picture shared by Gary/Ben in the Russia thread of Trump/Nadler is one anyone can get with Trump at his events during the 2016 election. One is not like the other. The relationship between Trump/Nadler is non existent whereas the relationship between Bill and Nadler goes back decades. Be careful of programmed NPCs thinking they know what they're talking about. And, per the Mueller report, Nadler was working with both campaigns: Someone is being pressured to flip. For clarity and the record, that is NOT my boat in the background! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Nanker said: For clarity and the record, that is NOT my boat in the background! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: For clarity as to who's who in that picture: Note, this is a picture of people vacationing together. Friends. The picture shared by Gary/Ben in the Russia thread of Trump/Nadler is one anyone can get with Trump at his events during the 2016 election. One is not like the other. The relationship between Trump/Nadler is non existent whereas the relationship between Bill and Nadler goes back decades. Be careful of programmed NPCs thinking they know what they're talking about. And, per the Mueller report, Nadler was working with both campaigns: Someone is being pressured to flip. is that a typo in the report? or are they talking about Ralph Nader? of course you meant Nader. Edited June 3, 2019 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Uh-oh ... that tweet has been removed and this one has been inserted in it's place: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1135655190592393216 seems he has a history. previously convicted in 2003 https://twitter.com/cernovich/status/1068184494979538944 Edited June 3, 2019 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 3, 2019 Author Share Posted June 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, Foxx said: that tweet has been removed and this one has been inserted in it's place: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1135655190592393216 seems he has a history. previously convicted in 2003 https://twitter.com/cernovich/status/1068184494979538944 What's interesting to me is he was indicted and under seal (possibly) while testifying to the SCO. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Game on. Twitter is shitting their pants at this news as well. https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1135661104623828992 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 12 minutes ago, Foxx said: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1135661104623828992 Nadler trying to muddy the waters and play defense against the FTC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 3, 2019 Share Posted June 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Uh-oh Direct ties to Bill Clinton: A pod of sperm whales was spotted in shallow water off Jeffrey Epstein's island nicknamed "***** Island". 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 7 hours ago, GG said: Regulators don't know what to do either. In all these cases they will look to past examples, which obviously won't fit in the Internet age landscape. My guess is that they will put in some kind of a Chinese wall between the social network plumbing and the advertising & sales departments. Leave them alone, I say. If people don’t know what they’re getting into by this time, that’s their own fault. Off the top of my head maybe the best example is how big tobacco was treated. People still smoke. Maybe the FTC should go through the process to shed sunlight on their operations a bit, but that’s about it. Even then, that’s going pretty far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 10 hours ago, snafu said: Leave them alone, I say. If people don’t know what they’re getting into by this time, that’s their own fault. Off the top of my head maybe the best example is how big tobacco was treated. People still smoke. Maybe the FTC should go through the process to shed sunlight on their operations a bit, but that’s about it. Even then, that’s going pretty far. I'm torn on this because it's taking anti-trust into uncharted territories. My standard for enforcing anti-trust is when there's clear consumer harm. There are many valid cases for natural monopolies to exist, and as long as the companies don't abuse their monopoly status, they should be left alone. The major techs aren't like traditional industrials, because consumers do benefit in direct transactions from their large size. You wouldn't get free 2-day shipping if Amazon is broken up. How would you benefit if there were two Facebooks doing the exact thing? My focus wouldn't be on anti-trust grounds but on corporate behavior. How are the companies using the vast personal data that they collect? Are they allowed to sell all of it? Are the TOS clear and do the companies skirt the TOS to drive more revenues. My guess on these questions is that do not behave ethically and are probably breaking some privacy laws. If needed, new laws should be considered because we never had situations where 3rd parties had access to mountains of personal data that individuals did not know were given up or permitted through small print. If banks engaged in this behavior, there'd be rightful indignation and multiple hearings leading to sanctions. The techs somehow get away with providing far less disclosures in their financial filings than most industries they now compete with. That's where my focus would be. Don't break them up, but air out their financials. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 Do the bubbles coming to the surface in the pic of the five guys indicate that Hill'ry is there too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Hmmmm, right as our President is in Great Britain.....................................Coincidence ? . 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Hmmmm, right as our President is in Great Britain.....................................Coincidence ? . Yup, of course, merely a coincidence. ? Now let's see if the guy lies, or is at least semi-honest. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: there was just a collective shitting of pants. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 More than $267m (£210m) belonging to a former Nigerian dictator has been seized from a Jersey bank account. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, Hedge said: More than $267m (£210m) belonging to a former Nigerian dictator has been seized from a Jersey bank account. $10m of that is mine. I have the emails to prove it. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 12 minutes ago, Hedge said: More than $267m (£210m) belonging to a former Nigerian dictator has been seized from a Jersey bank account. wait what no! that nigerian dude still owes me for helping him with saddam's gold! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 on a discord server I am a part of, theres a nigerian guy and he had nothing but bad things to say about this dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: $10m of that is mine. I have the emails to prove it. Send me your account numbers and pin and I'll get you the money promptly! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts