At 5/11/18 11:02 AM, AcidX wrote: Do you believe that Russian Hackers are rigging elections and interfering in Western Politics?

Bonus question:
Is this alleged influence stronger than the Medias role, which has also never shown us any proof of these alleged cyber attacks?

Hmm not really cause then I am pretty sure they would block me from seeing this post I mean if there gonna hack us there gonna be prepared unlike china lol kidding!! and about the A.I robots i love them it could be plossible they are the reason Maybe if people would be less devious then they would have less reason to atk us orrr they could be demons .. that would be really easy for a demon to possess a "slow moving" "electronic" Sooo if it was demons controling A.I robots then were screwed cause we gave them access to our web ...might end up going private from rest of the world like private so us NG must stick together if that happens haha

At 5/14/18 03:14 PM, EdyKel wrote:

They actually enjoy watching BBC world News, because it's tame in comparison to the other News networks.

it is more tame than most tv broadcast media, but there's certainly a left slant.

They mainstream media, like the BBC, do tend to be slightly to the left, but in comparison to the other news sites than pander to liberals, or conservatives, it come off as moderate.

you must not watch, it's quite a bit more than "slight" now. CNN used to be fact based and straight news, now it's about on the level of FoxNews, in some ways worse. you can see their bias in the faces of the hosts, in the questions they ask, the contributors they have on, and the stories they choose to run. during the obama admin, they were little more than a mouth piece for the whitehouse. press secretary makes a claim, CNN and MSNBC ran with it all day, parroting it word for word.

in some ways, Fox is more fair than CNN. if you watch, CNN will frequently have one republican view surrounded by 3-7 liberals or progressives. Fox, they often have a point for point debate, no not always though. it's a given that Fox is biased, they're a voice against the liberal media, always have been. CNN though, they use to be of a higher standard.

all this, of course opinion, as were many of your claims on this subject. if you only see CNN and MSNBC as slightly left, you certainly won't see any of the counter statements i made.

At 5/14/18 04:24 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 5/14/18 03:14 PM, EdyKel wrote:

They mainstream media, like the BBC, do tend to be slightly to the left, but in comparison to the other news sites than pander to liberals, or conservatives, it come off as moderate.

you must not watch, it's quite a bit more than "slight" now. CNN used to be fact based and straight news, now it's about on the level of FoxNews, in some ways worse. you can see their bias in the faces of the hosts, in the questions they ask, the contributors they have on, and the stories they choose to run. during the obama admin, they were little more than a mouth piece for the whitehouse. press secretary makes a claim, CNN and MSNBC ran with it all day, parroting it word for word.

in some ways, Fox is more fair than CNN. if you watch, CNN will frequently have one republican view surrounded by 3-7 liberals or progressives. Fox, they often have a point for point debate, no not always though. it's a given that Fox is biased, they're a voice against the liberal media, always have been. CNN though, they use to be of a higher standard.

all this, of course opinion, as were many of your claims on this subject. if you only see CNN and MSNBC as slightly left, you certainly won't see any of the counter statements i made.

People usually base the fairness of a new station on the basis of their political leaning. It's why some people actually believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced", even though a lot of people would see them constantly attacking the left, and kissing Trump's ass over some of the shit he does - which people on the right rarely see anything wrong with. But, you already imply that is what CNN and MSNBC does with the right, and Obama.

There is no real consensus on what a moderate is, as people on the right, and left, will consider their position as being moderate in comparison to the other side. My parents consider themselves moderate, while always blasting the left, and see bias in mainstream news. They also consider me liberal, even though much of my views mirror their own on gun control, wars, regulations, abortion, and other stuff. But, because I disagree with them on some point's I'm considered a liberal by them, not a moderate. That's how crazy all this shit has become. On a lot of thing they mistake my apathy for liberalism, when I often see stuff as a waste of time, attention, and money.

A lot of this shit often comes down to race, and religion, and culture, which, to me, is silly nonsense. I see most mainstream news as just catering to a wide spectrum of races, and religions, like super markets do with their aisles, or sections, dedicated to kosher, Asian, and Hispanic,foods. Or business that say Happy Holidays, instead of just Merry Christmas. While I see this as nothing more than a practical business decision, Conservatives see all this as attacks on their culture, and race, by the left. Fox news often runs segments about how there is war on Christmas, and on the white culture.

Indeed, if we go buy a PEW study, it shows where a lot of these news sites sit, by the audiences that watches them. But, I doubt you will like it, or even agree with it, since it shows those news station that you don't like closer to the middle than Fox News, or most Right-wing sites.

At 5/14/18 04:14 PM, RedeyestheSecound wrote: about the A.I robots i love them it could be plossible they are the reason Maybe if people would be less devious then they would have less reason to atk us orrr they could be demons .. that would be really easy for a demon to possess a "slow moving" "electronic" Sooo if it was demons controling A.I robots then were screwed cause we gave them access to our web ...might end up going private from rest of the world like private so us NG must stick together if that happens haha

10/10

At 5/14/18 04:24 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: in some ways, Fox is more fair than CNN.

Wasn't there some thing where Fox or CNN (or both?) had to change from being a news company to an entertainment company? because their stories were literally becoming so fictitious...? Or maybe they were just already and entertainment company. I know that BBC news is sort of separate to BBC's entertainment and they class as two different brands.

At 5/14/18 03:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: You argued that the BBC was state run, and I pointed out they weren't.

You're wrong.
The BBC is entirely a government media organisation from top to bottom. It's funded by TV licensing fees which UK citizens pay if they have television.
We have other channels, which are run by independent media companies too but their news divisions still have a lot of the same restrictions. All of the same D-notices imposed on them. Which is another reason these journalists end up on foreign media, as our government isn't able to police that.

It's literally RT for Britain, only 10x worse.

And of course RT is a Russian propaganda channel, which easily finds discontent people - if they are not paid actors-

These are journalists. Journalists who once worked for these channels and were prominent, regular figures in our political media on our own mainstream channels. Usually critical of them. John Pilger's wikipedia page.

The fact that the UK allows RT to run in their country shows that it open to critical views of it, unlike Russia, which bars all western news media because they do not allow any criticism of the government. You have more freedom of choice in the UK, and in many other Western countries, than in Russia, because you have access to other news channels, such Sky News, which tends to the right, Al Jazeera, and others, which don't tend to the center left, or tow the Israel narrative.

Not for long. Are you forgetting that Theresa May want's to create her own internet just for Britain? Like say... a communist empire.
All we'd have left then is our little telly boxes. Which do have some other foreign channels, particularly if you pay for cable. BECAUSE we have so many immigrants living here. If we get rid of those channels, they fucking kick off mate. So cosmopolitan.

No, the main charges him have not been dropped, and he hasn't won any major victory in the courts, aside from a lawsuit against the New Zealand police for invading his privacy.That's it.

Oh, he's been chipping away at them for a while. He's got a few of these small little cases out the way and as you pointed out.. That little violation of rights negates some of his extradition charges, hence he is allowed to live in another country now. He's been very transparent about the entire case, remaining confident that he's on track, even attempting to sue the NZ government. Not that this has anything to do with Russian hackers.

Neither Dotcom or Assange are whistle blowers, just Snowden.

Dotcom has tried to whistleblow but wasn't even acknowledged and Assange's company, wikileaks, is essentially an organisation made to protect whistleblowers. See: Reddit co-founder Aaron Schwartz's contributions to wikileaks.

The fact remains that, so far, the only real hard evidence we have of any hack.. Is this picture.
This picture is the only actual proof of this data being transferred at all. Other than the fact the emails appeared on wikileaks, obviously. This picture also just happens to be attached to the article calling out the Russian Hack theory.
In fact.. I believe there was a torrent going around where you could download it yourself. Original timestamps and everything.
Until the DNC gets its act together and releases the findings of their private investigation into this alleged hack then.. My opinion remains fixed.

What's up guys? Welcome back to my laboratory where safety is number one priority!

At 5/14/18 05:53 PM, AcidX wrote:

At 5/14/18 03:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: You argued that the BBC was state run, and I pointed out they weren't.

You're wrong.
The BBC is entirely a government media organisation from top to bottom. It's funded by TV licensing fees which UK citizens pay if they have television.
We have other channels, which are run by independent media companies too but their news divisions still have a lot of the same restrictions. All of the same D-notices imposed on them. Which is another reason these journalists end up on foreign media, as our government isn't able to police that.

It's literally RT for Britain, only 10x worse.

No. The BBC is a corporation. They don't have scripts that are given to them by government officials, even though they receive licensing fees. It's no more different than the US PBS, or NPR, networks which receives government subsidies, but, which, are often critical of the current government.

All this is about is that they don't tow the narrative that YOU WANT them to tell. You see, you got this who anti-establishment thing going on, where you will automatically disbelieve anything and everything your government tells you, because you don't like the direction in which it is heading, while willing to believe foreign government narratives or shady character on the internet, over your own government. In doing so, you just set yourself up to support people, or countries that are even worse, as they pander to your ego and fears, using it take power and make money. It's not much more complicated than that.

And of course RT is a Russian propaganda channel, which easily finds discontent people - if they are not paid actors-

These are journalists. Journalists who once worked for these channels and were prominent, regular figures in our political media on our own mainstream channels. Usually critical of them. John Pilger's wikipedia page.

John Pilger - some could say that he is a Russian ass kisser, because he has nothing but praise for Russia, and other despots, like North Korea, and Venezuela, while damning the west, and their Democracies. He is basically a Communist lover, who loves strong armed leaders. Is this one of the best example you can come up with?

Neil Clark - Besides writing opinion pieces for other news organizations, he's a regular, and paid contributor, for RT. In the video you posted, he steered the conversation away from the Skripal story to jihadist attacks, and the fine work the Russians were doing in Syria against ISIS. huh? And it's funny how he undermines your own argument when he also contributes to other media sites by spewing his pro-Russian narrative.

So, you have two people who pretty much are pro-Russia, and anti-western establishment, who unsurprising are on Russian propaganda TV, who don't even entertain opposing narratives. What a surprise.

The fact that the UK allows RT to run in their country shows that it open to critical views of it, unlike Russia, which bars all western news media because they do not allow any criticism of the government. You have more freedom of choice in the UK, and in many other Western countries, than in Russia, because you have access to other news channels, such Sky News, which tends to the right, Al Jazeera, and others, which don't tend to the center left, or tow the Israel narrative.

Not for long. Are you forgetting that Theresa May want's to create her own internet just for Britain? Like say... a communist empire.
All we'd have left then is our little telly boxes. Which do have some other foreign channels, particularly if you pay for cable. BECAUSE we have so many immigrants living here. If we get rid of those channels, they fucking kick off mate. So cosmopolitan.

I believe that's the conservative proposal at the moment, while the EU courts recently denounced the UK surveillance powers as illegal. I bring this up because I doubt they have the momentum to pass it, considering that it bother both liberals, and conservatives, media who are all against it - for different reasons. I can see the government passing taxes on the social media sites, as additional revenue, and some regulations over them, but that's about it... Unless there is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE attack, I don't see the bill going through any time soon, as it's basically political suicide at the moment since it's so unpopular.

No, the main charges him have not been dropped, and he hasn't won any major victory in the courts, aside from a lawsuit against the New Zealand police for invading his privacy.That's it.

Oh, he's been chipping away at them for a while. He's got a few of these small little cases out the way and as you pointed out.. That little violation of rights negates some of his extradition charges, hence he is allowed to live in another country now. He's been very transparent about the entire case, remaining confident that he's on track, even attempting to sue the NZ government. Not that this has anything to do with Russian hackers.

Doesn't change the fact the NZ courts has okayed his extradition to the US, and he can keep filing appeals, but that get to be pretty expensive over time, until they finally get tired of that. And, of course, he can move to other countries, after filing for asylum in countries that won't extradite him... Like Russia. You see how this works,he gives you these half truth, to make it sound like he innocent of everything, and can do whatever he wants, but that not entirely true. He just sells you the idea, and you buy it without thinking twice.

And this has to do with his position on why he says the things he does about The US, and western countries. It has biased his opinion.

Neither Dotcom or Assange are whistle blowers, just Snowden.

Dotcom has tried to whistleblow but wasn't even acknowledged and Assange's company, wikileaks, is essentially an organisation made to protect whistleblowers. See: Reddit co-founder Aaron Schwartz's contributions to wikileaks.

He could just release what he has, instead of coming up with excuses for not doing so. Hook, line, and sinker.

As for Wikileaks, your claiming double standards over transparency. We don't know who funds him, or gives him leaks - which is why people believe he works for the Russians. So, not only are you being a hypocrite over Wikileaks lack of transparency, over government, you don't have any proof that Russia wasn't behind it, except Asange's word.

The fact remains that, so far, the only real hard evidence we have of any hack.. Is this picture.
This picture is the only actual proof of this data being transferred at all. Other than the fact the emails appeared on wikileaks, obviously. This picture also just happens to be attached to the article calling out the Russian Hack theory.
In fact.. I believe there was a torrent going around where you could download it yourself. Original timestamps and everything.
Until the DNC gets its act together and releases the findings of their private investigation into this alleged hack then.. My opinion remains fixed.

The fact is you don't have an argument that would stand up in court over Seth Rich, because you lack any credible evidence to support it. And I already pointed out a link that shows how it could be downloaded, and how the speed could easily be changed. What are you left with then? A conspiracy that hinges on someone being killed because they physically downloaded a file straight off the computer on a flash card, of e-mails that were only slightly embarrassing to Democrats because it showed that they supported Clinton over Bernie sanders, angering Bernie supporters... oh and a list of Democrat donors.... not exactly something you would kill someone over. There was nothing earth shattering in them.

At 5/14/18 05:53 PM, AcidX wrote:

Wasn't there some thing where Fox or CNN (or both?) had to change from being a news company to an entertainment company?

i'm not sure it's so much Fox had to, but that it was a wise choice. most their programming is opinion driven, claiming to be straight news opens them up to legal issues. not too long ago, fox would put "opinion" in the corner when a commentator spoke without solid facts, they've stopped this. Fox News is owned by 21st Century Fox, which split off their news channel and television channels into an entertainment group, while keeping many news papers and publishers under the News Corp brand.

if CNN hasn't done so also, they probably should. like Fox, most of their programming is opinion driven. like Fox, they dedicated a portion of their airtime to documentary type programs which have little to do with news.

because their stories were literally becoming so fictitious...?

there have been a few cases of audio that was deceptively edited being used. i can't speak for all instances, but i've seen apologies.

my point wasn't to so much defend Fox News, it's purpose and slant has always been clear. just saying, CNN isn't innocent or unbiased, it's not the channel it use to be. if you watch the channel, the bias is clear.

At 5/14/18 11:37 PM, EdyKel wrote: The BBC is a corporation. They don't have scripts that are given to them by government officials, even though they receive licensing fees. It's no more different than the US PBS, or NPR, networks which receives government subsidies, but, which, are often critical of the current government.

The BBC are almost never critical of our current government. Unless it's something which they can't ignore. They have shows like question time, where there is debate. People will be critical on there... but the hosts and people we "trust" are always pushing that government agenda, no matter what. Only guests are critical and any criticism is steered into positivity.

They're more critical of Jeremy Corbyn. In fact.. Isn't he Russian too? Because he wanted to follow international law in the Novichok case, rather than jump to conclusions. because he was "backed by Russian hackers"... hmm
The BBC is a corporation. A government owned one. With a severe left bias.
Do you think it is left biased when there's a right-wing government in?
It isn't. I actually used to quite like the BBC until this current government.

All this is about is that they don't tow the narrative that YOU WANT them to tell.

You're confused again. I'm asking for proof. I'm itching for them to release believable proof. Yet, time and time again - they don't. We've had three illegal wars based on similar things. Even you acknowledge problems and corruption within governments. Why should I believe a thing they say about a foreign "threat" which isn't proven?

John Pilger - some could say that he is a Russian ass kisser

Closed perspective, prejudice. Like all of your Russian and communist fears.
The man is an Aus-Brit patriot. He does this reporting and shares this information because he cares about his country and the state of where it's headed. You're wanting me to share some Western media channel discussing this. I know, and the entire point I'm making is that it can't happen. There's D-notices in place meaning journalists get prosecuted if they report on this stuff. As suspected with the Skripal's, since that disappeared off our mainstream media entirely. A convenient tactic to stop any public interviews with the survivors, about what they actually experienced.

has nothing but praise for Russia, and other despots, like North Korea, and Venezuela,

I wouldn't say praise. He just offers an actual on-the-ground look at what life is really like in these places... Which, again, it's not what we're ever told on mainstream channels.

Is this one of the best example you can come up with?

Nope. There's Vanessa Beeley too. There's the brit boys and their correspondents at UK column. Ex-GCHQ Alexander Thomas. There's literally any fucking link I've shared in this thread, if you actually looked at them. None of these people have any ties or affiliation to Russia, they are all Western academics. It's simply your fear and prejudice because they don't push the narrative YOU WANT them to tell.

Neil Clark - Besides writing opinion pieces for other news organizations, he's a regular, and paid contributor, for RT. In the video you posted, he steered the conversation away from the Skripal story to jihadist attacks, and the fine work the Russians were doing in Syria against ISIS. huh?

Every journalist is a paid contributor. Am i supposed to be surprised he got paid for his job?
I think Syria is very relevant. There is very strong Islamic threat in Britain and all of Europe - way more than any "Russian threat". The Russian's are on the Syrian's side. We are backing the rebels and trying to overthrow Assad. Which would mean the end of the last remaining Christian community in the middle-east? Al Nusra would take over, like they did in Iraq. We're fighting for the wrong people. Syrian's actually like Assad, contrary to whatever you're told about him. What they don't like is the ISIS occupation and the Islamic Caliphate, which we aided. The story has been roughly the same in all 3 regions of the Middle-East we've directly destabilised.

I believe that's the conservative proposal at the moment, while the EU courts recently denounced the UK surveillance powers as illegal.

UK surveillance powers are illegal but they are still in place. It didn't stop May from rushing it through unchallenged in 2016. She's fucking batshit crazy and you're defending her lies.

Unless there is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE attack, I don't see the bill going through any time soon

I guarantee, it'll be "the Russians" when it comes.

after filing for asylum in countries that won't extradite him... Like Russia.

He moved to Queensland Australia and plans on staying there.

And this has to do with his position on why he says the things he does about The US, and western countries. It has biased his opinion.

Biased how exactly? Explain his bias to me. Tell me what parts of his analysis are pro-Russian. Show me some ties he has to Russian government. Beyond your assumption that "Wikileaks is Russian".

He could just release what he has, instead of coming up with excuses for not doing so. Hook, line, and sinker.

Yeah nice troll. I imagine there is sensitive information in there and severe legal ramifications. Given his current circumstances, he wouldn't want to face even more charges and further expose himself without proper legal defence - ie, going through the proper channels.
Again, he's the only one here who actually knows what he's doing and what he's talking about, with any kind of evidence at all. Just because you don't like him or don't like what he says... It doesn't make him any less credible.
Also, I linked you to that torrent straight from Guccifer himself. Is the entire hack a fabrication now?? You can physically look at the files. Yourself!

As for Wikileaks, your claiming double standards over transparency. We don't know who funds him, or gives him leaks -

Wikileaks is a publicly supported organisation operating on public donations. It's also not HIM. It's not JUST Assange. So, literally anybody. That's who. That's why it's "wiki". We've already mentioned two notable supporters; Kim Dotcom. Contributions from Aaron Schwartz - whom you should also look into. He faced decades in prison and killed himself because of this shit. He was a peaceful programmer, merely sharing freely available educational papers which were out of circulation and building up a database... however.. His software contributions to wikileaks made him a target. The list is extensive but frankly I don't even care who or where funding is from. They do incredible work and without them, the whole world could be in a much darker place. Have you ever actually read a wikileak?

See this is the problem. You are treating these as isolated separate incidents. Not making the connection. Not establishing that almost the entire British cabinet is corrupt and riddled with problems. Yet here you are defending them and their lies. Their proxy-wars for profit and their stripping of our rights.
You've told me we don't hack Russia because they use paper ballots.. So how the fuck do they hack British elections or referendums? Which are also paper ballots. They don't.

The fact is you don't have an argument that would stand up in court over Seth Rich,

Neither do you, regarding DNC hack.

e-mails that were only slightly embarrassing to Democrats because it showed that they supported Clinton over Bernie sanders

Anyway.. If your little Podesta phishing email is evidence and proof that one password allows you to access an entire server .. Then we can safely assume that Hilary's email conversation regarding leverage was almost definitely her bribing out Bernie. So... Only herself to blame really. He'd have beaten Trump and the so-called Russian hackers.

At 5/15/18 06:50 AM, AcidX wrote: Ex-GCHQ Alexander Thomas.

Oops. I meant Alexander Thomson.

A. Thomas was someone else I knew irl.

At 5/15/18 06:01 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: i'm not sure it's so much Fox had to, but that it was a wise choice. most their programming is opinion driven, claiming to be straight news opens them up to legal issues. not too long ago, fox would put "opinion" in the corner when a commentator spoke without solid facts, they've stopped this.

Indeed.

if CNN hasn't done so also, they probably should. like Fox, most of their programming is opinion driven. like Fox, they dedicated a portion of their airtime to documentary type programs which have little to do with news.

The BBC does this too.

there have been a few cases of audio that was deceptively edited being used. i can't speak for all instances, but i've seen apologies.

Remember, a true apology means that you won't do it again.

my point wasn't to so much defend Fox News, it's purpose and slant has always been clear. just saying, CNN isn't innocent or unbiased, it's not the channel it use to be. if you watch the channel, the bias is clear.

The bias is clear everywhere, for all directions, otherwise we'd be using factual evidence in all of these issues.

(some) Western politicians are just upright retarded.

At 5/15/18 06:50 AM, AcidX wrote:

At 5/14/18 11:37 PM, EdyKel wrote:

It isn't. I actually used to quite like the BBC until this current government.

And there it is, the actual reason. When it doesn't support you views over government, you look for any and all reasons to say it's biased and government controlled, rather than admit it's you. The BBC hasn't changed, it still has it's own little bias, like a lot of media. And when it just reports the news, and what government says, you get angry that it doesn't criticize them. The point of the news should be just to report the news, and just the facts, not just comment on it, which is where much of the biases are formed.

For over 6 years, when Obama was in office, and the Republican Controlled the House, and the hearings over investigations, they (House Republicans) would come up with all types of conspiracy theories about potential Obama scandals, or leaked selected information to the press to promote a narrative, and the mainstream media would just report on what they said, unwittingly carrying their narrative, because they didn't comment, or questioned it, they just reported what was given to them. Now, it's all considered fake news, when something is not favorable to Trump. The media didn't change, views over them did with partisan bias.

All this is about is that they don't tow the narrative that YOU WANT them to tell.

You're confused again. I'm asking for proof. I'm itching for them to release believable proof. Yet, time and time again - they don't. We've had three illegal wars based on similar things. Even you acknowledge problems and corruption within governments. Why should I believe a thing they say about a foreign "threat" which isn't proven?

You will never be satisfied, even if they gave you proof you would not trust it. And yet, you already rely on less proof for your own conspiracy theories, claiming that millions are part of a conspiracy against you in the media, making up things with crisis actors, or controlled by the government, while you rely on people on the net who tell you they have proof but never show it.

John Pilger - some could say that he is a Russian ass kisser

Closed perspective, prejudice. Like all of your Russian and communist fears.
The man is an Aus-Brit patriot.

The guy has biases up the wazoo, which favors communist countries, and strong man despots. You cannot disprove that.

has nothing but praise for Russia, and other despots, like North Korea, and Venezuela,

I wouldn't say praise. He just offers an actual on-the-ground look at what life is really like in these places... Which, again, it's not what we're ever told on mainstream channels.

Really? You talk of not trusting your own government, but you trust countries that are based on communism, and strong man leaders, who give you less freedoms than what you currently have?

Is this one of the best example you can come up with?

Nope. There's Vanessa Beeley too. There's the brit boys and their correspondents at UK column. Ex-GCHQ Alexander Thomas. There's literally any fucking link I've shared in this thread, if you actually looked at them. None of these people have any ties or affiliation to Russia, they are all Western academics. It's simply your fear and prejudice because they don't push the narrative YOU WANT them to tell.

Again, you will always have those who tow a different narrative for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean they are right, or don't have their own bias, or motives. I go with what is being reported on by the general media, and takes bits and pieces from it to form my own views, being wary of partisan biases, speculation, and theories. But you are no different than what you are arguing against, with the promotion of a narrative that you want.

Neil Clark - Besides writing opinion pieces for other news organizations, he's a regular, and paid contributor, for RT. In the video you posted, he steered the conversation away from the Skripal story to jihadist attacks, and the fine work the Russians were doing in Syria against ISIS. huh?

Every journalist is a paid contributor. Am i supposed to be surprised he got paid for his job?

To a Russian propaganda site.

Moved the rest of your argument to the Syrian thread.

after filing for asylum in countries that won't extradite him... Like Russia.

He moved to Queensland Australia and plans on staying there.

It doesn't change the fact that you just said he said that he is free to move about, when that is not quite true.

And this has to do with his position on why he says the things he does about The US, and western countries. It has biased his opinion.

Biased how exactly? Explain his bias to me. Tell me what parts of his analysis are pro-Russian. Show me some ties he has to Russian government. Beyond your assumption that "Wikileaks is Russian".

He always takes a counter position to western governments, which are in line with Russia - and never says anything bad about them.

He could just release what he has, instead of coming up with excuses for not doing so. Hook, line, and sinker.

Yeah nice troll. I imagine there is sensitive information in there and severe legal ramifications. Given his current circumstances, he wouldn't want to face even more charges and further expose himself without proper legal defence - ie, going through the proper channels.

He's already in trouble, and he could leak it anomalously. Stop making up excuses for his lack of proof.

Also, I linked you to that torrent straight from Guccifer himself. Is the entire hack a fabrication now??

Just the story that you are promoting. It doesn't float.

As for Wikileaks, your claiming double standards over transparency. We don't know who funds him, or gives him leaks -

Wikileaks is a publicly supported organisation operating on public donations. It's also not HIM. It's not JUST Assange. So, literally anybody. That's who. That's why it's "wiki". We've already mentioned two notable supporters; Kim Dotcom. Contributions from Aaron Schwartz - whom you should also look into. He faced decades in prison and killed himself because of this shit...

You are making up excuses to have double standards. You don't think government don't have similar reasons for hiding stuff from the public, and from from other countries, because it might undermine their security and safety, because a country, who is a competitor in the world, won't try to use it for their own gain? I'm not saying that everything should be hidden, some things do need to be leaked, especial over domestic surveillance, but some things should not be leaked, especially by foreign governments, who will selectively use them for their own benefit, making people of another country their unwittingly patsy in their scheme. And that is where Wikileaks comes in, which claims to want transparency, while also not being transparent.

You've told me we don't hack Russia because they use paper ballots.. So how the fuck do they hack British elections or referendums? Which are also paper ballots. They don't.

I never said anything like that. I said they hacked the DNC, they spread fake news to undermine and divide western countries, and have attempted to hack voter databases and our energy infrastructure. Russia is a bit backwards to the US, when it comes to their own power grid, and voter databases, while having a very restricted internet. And, unlike them, we have a lot of voter machines that are connected to the net, which is a big security risk.

Anyway.. If your little Podesta phishing email is evidence and proof that one password allows you to access an entire server .. Then we can safely assume that Hilary's email conversation regarding leverage was almost definitely her bribing out Bernie. So... Only herself to blame really. He'd have beaten Trump and the so-called Russian hackers.

If Clinton was bribed with millions of dollars, or they killed people, then that might be worth killing someone for, but that was not the case. It was mostly embarrassing shit that angered Bernie supporters. And I suggest you learn more about Phishing is.

At 5/16/18 12:01 AM, EdyKel wrote: When it doesn't support you views over government, you look for any and all reasons to say it's biased and government controlled, rather than admit it's you.

What?
I literally told you that when a right-wing government is in, the bias is completely different. As in, it wasn't censored to fuck and wasn't all shadow journalism with zero in-depth investigation.

Firstly, you're operating here on the assumption that I'm even right-wing or have a political bias myself. In fact, you've been basing a lot of your attacks at me on assumptions. You've adopted the media stance here, essentially taking any Corbyn or Russia smear and turning it on me. According to you I'm a: Russian Conspiracy theorist technophobic luddite who believes the world is flat and is also religious - for some reason that's relevant. My only bias is Justice and Truth. I don't like lies. I think the entire human race would benefit from a lot more honesty.

The BBC hasn't changed, it still has it's own little bias

lol you're right, they're still protecting paedophiles, rapists and whatever other criminals within our government and media. They're still stalling investigations and providing zero coverage on these actual real problems within our own country. People are marching in protest every week, factories are being shut down by protestors. We're one step short of riots in some places and there is NOT A WORD of it anywhere on MSM, not just the BBC. It's not just bias. It's fucking brainwashing.

I think literally ANY British person on here would agree that the BBC has definitely changed over the past several years. According to the Daily Mail, only 1 in 6 British people trust the BBC and truthfully, I would guess the figure is even lower. Even my sister questions this Skripal thing and she watches reality TV, couldn't care less about politics type of person. I'll say it again. This 4,000% increase in Russian Bot activity is just people like me speaking out and calling them out for their repetitive lies. It's not Russia ramping up their "troll factories" ffs. It's just regular citizens going "nope, we don't buy it!" at long last. Anything which isn't pro-globalist-lie is automatically filed under Russian bots. That figure is entirely meaningless in context of Russia. It's just a barefaced lie and nothing more.

and the mainstream media would just report on what they said, unwittingly carrying their narrative, because they didn't comment, or questioned it, they just reported what was given to them.

This is exactly what they are doing with the Russian Hacker story, also just about any middle-east story. You never see the actual sources or investigations behind these things. I repeat: Three illegal wars. Putin's the new bogeyman, now that Kim Jong Un's piped down.

You will never be satisfied, even if they gave you proof you would not trust it. And yet, you already rely on less proof for your own conspiracy theories

wrong and wrong. I ask for actual proof. I want to see it so I finally can trust it, so I can have peace of mind and I can know this isn't all made up to back their evil agenda. As someone who uses FTP and SFTP. As someone who can SSH and SCP my way onto a server. As someone who understands the difference between a server and an email server ... I know what to look for. Me and millions of others know the footprints and logs that we want to see. There should be absolutely no problem whatsoever presenting these, if it truly was a legitimate hack but so far they haven't shown us a single piece of data.

The guy has biases up the wazoo, which favors communist countries, and strong man despots. You cannot disprove that.

I'm not trying to disprove that. I'm saying he is against our government because our government is biased against a lot of the true interests of its own citizens. He's biased against our own strong man despots. He's not biased toward Russia though. You are underestimating how revered and how prominent of a figure this man was on British television. He acknowledges the fact he's anti-authority (in this NON-RUSSIAN 2012 interview, he also says something about Syria which came true) and has problems with our current power structure. Because he sees it first-hand. He uncovers and reports on this shit. He's actually been there. That's his day job. It's why people like him and Roger Cook were so popular back in the day. Their work has always been ground breaking and the man has been correct about every single thing he's uncovered. It's normally nothing more than simple observation and neutral presentation of facts. He hasn't just decided to get worse at his job, now that Russia are "the enemy". His Russian allegiance exists entirely in your head.

Really? You talk of not trusting your own government, but you trust countries that are based on communism, and strong man leaders, who give you less freedoms than what you currently have?

My government is literally trying to restrict our rights. Holding political prisoners. Censoring people who speak up. Literally policing THOUGHT over actual crime. Whilst also supporting a genocide in Yemen and selling weapons to countries on our own human rights blacklist.

you will always have those who tow a different narrative for whatever reason

no. Only those who are honest.

To a Russian propaganda site

Credit to them for actually reporting in detail, better than our own publications, on what's happening in our own countries.

It doesn't change the fact that you just said he said that he is free to move about, when that is not quite true.

Still awaiting proof on his ties with Russia and his Russian bias?

He always takes a counter position to western governments, which are in line with Russia - and never says anything bad about them.

Yes because it's mostly dark and corrupt as fuck.

Just the story that you are promoting. It doesn't float.

Yours does how again?

because it might undermine their security and safety, because a country, who is a competitor in the world, won't try to use it for their own gain? I'm not saying that everything should be hidden, some things do need to be leaked, especial over domestic surveillance, but some things should not be leaked, especially by foreign governments, who will selectively use them for their own benefit, making people of another country their unwittingly patsy in their scheme.

that is where Wikileaks comes in, which claims to want transparency, while also not being transparent.

They're pretty transparent about things. In fact, they've been real busy today calling out factually incorrect headlines and articles

I never said anything like that. I said they hacked the DNC

You and a lot of people have said that. No one has actually proved it. You can't just repeat "durr but phishing". I've had the misfortune of working in marketing. I've known some total cunts who put people on those lists. I've had close relations who were phished. All you're doing is repeating this story you're told, until it transmutes in your mind into fact. Just like we did about WMDs in Iraq.

they spread fake news to undermine and divide western countries

Not hacking.
WE do this exact thing too.
See: 300-man team within our best intelligence organisations, working solely to bring down and discredit Wikileaks.

unlike them, we have a lot of voter machines that are connected to the net, which is a big security risk.

Pretty fucking stupid if you ask me. Convenient though.

If Clinton was bribed with millions of dollars, or they killed people, then that might be worth killing someone for, but that was not the case. It was mostly embarrassing shit that angered Bernie supporters

Rightfully so too. I suppose he's a communist too.
Anyway let me just get that interview Seth Rich did about the files he leaked.. OH wait! He didn't get a chance to do any of that, did he?

At 5/16/18 12:01 AM, EdyKel wrote: And, unlike them, we have a lot of voter machines that are connected to the net, which is a big security risk.

this is a false statement

way to tow the line.

At 5/18/18 02:34 PM, AcidX wrote:

At 5/16/18 12:01 AM, EdyKel wrote: When it doesn't support you views over government, you look for any and all reasons to say it's biased and government controlled, rather than admit it's you.

What?
I literally told you that when a right-wing government is in, the bias is completely different. As in, it wasn't censored to fuck and wasn't all shadow journalism with zero in-depth investigation.

Stop thinking two dimensionaly. It don't matter what political spectrum runs government, you are resentful when the media doesn't reflect your views, which leads you to make up all this weird shit.

Firstly, you're operating here on the assumption that I'm even right-wing or have a political bias myself.

Nope. I would consider you a slightly right leaning libertarian, an oxymoron, who often sides with the right on social issue such as immigration and Muslims, and Brexit, but differs on other issues.

The BBC hasn't changed, it still has it's own little bias

lol you're right, they're still protecting paedophiles, rapists and whatever other criminals within our government and media. They're still stalling investigations and providing zero coverage on these actual real problems within our own country. People are marching in protest every week, factories are being shut down by protestors. We're one step short of riots in some places and there is NOT A WORD of it anywhere on MSM, not just the BBC. It's not just bias. It's fucking brainwashing.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

I'll say it again. This 4,000% increase in Russian Bot activity is just people like me speaking out and calling them out for their repetitive lies.

You can say you don't agree with the govermnet's finding, or story, but just don't say that the media is in on it because that just further undermines your argument by indicating that you are more than willing to accept lesser proof to support alternatives stories.

and the mainstream media would just report on what they said, unwittingly carrying their narrative, because they didn't comment, or questioned it, they just reported what was given to them.

This is exactly what they are doing with the Russian Hacker story, also just about any middle-east story. You never see the actual sources or investigations behind these things. I repeat: Three illegal wars. Putin's the new bogeyman, now that Kim Jong Un's piped down.

What do you want? Do you want commentary that carries different views and bias, or just news that carries just the facts from where ever they come from?So, far, you are just willing to take commentary, and whatever, that drives them, as long as they just support your feelings about government.

You will never be satisfied, even if they gave you proof you would not trust it. And yet, you already rely on less proof for your own conspiracy theories

wrong and wrong. I ask for actual proof. I want to see it so I finally can trust it,

No, you don't. You have never asked for proof from anyone who tells you what you want to believe. You seem to claim that the CIA, and Israel's intelligence group, are behind some shit because they have the means, and equipment to do so, ignoring that other countries have similar capabilities, but that inference, not proof. Not to mention you believe people who claim to have proof, but never produces it because of some convenient excuse. You don't want proof, you want stories to support your feelings.

The guy has biases up the wazoo, which favors communist countries, and strong man despots. You cannot disprove that.

I'm not trying to disprove that. I'm saying he is against our government because our government is biased against a lot of the true interests of its own citizens.

You can say that government is filled with people who are corupt, or pursue their own self interest, listening to corporations, or those who have money and influence, at the expense of the masses. But that is still just a generalization that is a catchall explanation while explaining nothing. There are ways to go about addressing this stuff, and ways not to. You don't interview a guy who is biased as heck against western countries, often inflating stories and narratives to get the bigger impact, which is what Foreign countries like Russia does against Western countries. You want people who are objective, non-bias, and boring as hell, to give the best account.

Really? You talk of not trusting your own government, but you trust countries that are based on communism, and strong man leaders, who give you less freedoms than what you currently have?

My government is literally trying to restrict our rights. Holding political prisoners. Censoring people who speak up. Literally policing THOUGHT over actual crime. Whilst also supporting a genocide in Yemen and selling weapons to countries on our own human rights blacklist.

So, again, this has everything to do with you thinking that your rights are being taken away, as a reason not to trust anything your government says - always taking an opposing view to what your government says because you believe they use everything as a justification to take away your rights. They don't need the Russian story to do that, all they need is people like you who are paranoid about immigrant, or other terror groups, or even the fear of losing your rights to protect another group, to take power and your rights away.

you will always have those who tow a different narrative for whatever reason

no. Only those who are honest.

Says the guy who pretty much bends over to strangers on the Internet, and anyone who whispers things that turn them on.

It doesn't change the fact that you just said he said that he is free to move about, when that is not quite true.

Still awaiting proof on his ties with Russia and his Russian bias?

Deflection, and never said he had ties to Russia.You just made that up.

Just the story that you are promoting. It doesn't float.

Yours does how again?

Still waiting for your proof of crisis actors, and the media is controlled by government.

that is where Wikileaks comes in, which claims to want transparency, while also not being transparent.

They're pretty transparent about things. In fact, they've been real busy today calling out factually incorrect headlines and articles

Nope. They are not transparent.

I never said anything like that. I said they hacked the DNC

You and a lot of people have said that. No one has actually proved it. You can't just repeat "durr but phishing". I've had the misfortune of working in marketing. I've known some total cunts who put people on those lists. I've had close relations who were phished. All you're doing is repeating this story you're told, until it transmutes in your mind into fact. Just like we did about WMDs in Iraq.

Because that's what a lot of private security firms who have looked into have said.

As for Iraq, all the information was there to dispute it, the administration at that time hyped it to the public with iffy, cherry picked, intel, to create a sense of urgency for it, before people could actually look too closely at it to punch holes in it. Here, you have all the intelligence agencies agreeing that the DNC hack came from Russia which was a far departure from uncertainty from them over Iraq.

they spread fake news to undermine and divide western countries

Not hacking.
WE do this exact thing too.

So you justify why it's okay when they do it? And the last time I looked, Russia, North Korea, and China, all have closed off internet, which make it hard to spread disinformation and division there by foreign governments.

If Clinton was bribed with millions of dollars, or they killed people, then that might be worth killing someone for, but that was not the case. It was mostly embarrassing shit that angered Bernie supporters

Rightfully so too. I suppose he's a communist too.

No. But the far right will say he is. And I'm still waiting for that proof that someone intentionally killed him because of that, and actual proof he stole the file. But, you don't require proof for this.

At 5/18/18 03:06 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 5/16/18 12:01 AM, EdyKel wrote: And, unlike them, we have a lot of voter machines that are connected to the net, which is a big security risk.

this is a false statement

way to tow the line.

You might want to reread your link, son.

At 5/18/18 05:52 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 5/18/18 03:06 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 5/16/18 12:01 AM, EdyKel wrote: And, unlike them, we have a lot of voter machines that are connected to the net, which is a big security risk.

this is a false statement

way to tow the line.

You might want to reread your link, son.

you really just see what you want, don't you?

at most, some newer machines are indirectly connected to internet, for updates.

to say it's a lot is a stretch

At 5/18/18 06:16 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 5/18/18 05:52 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 5/18/18 03:06 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 5/16/18 12:01 AM, EdyKel wrote: And, unlike them, we have a lot of voter machines that are connected to the net, which is a big security risk.

this is a false statement

way to tow the line.

You might want to reread your link, son.

you really just see what you want, don't you?

at most, some newer machines are indirectly connected to internet, for updates.

to say it's a lot is a stretch

I didn't say "most", or even "majority", and that link shows that half of the 12 listed machines have internet connections. Granted, the blog post also says most are not connected to it (during elections?), but any machine installed with remote-access software will be connected to it, regardless - to either update selection, monitor results, or even download those results, for reasons to cut cost, and out of convenience. At least half the state in the US use these types of electronic voting machines, which have the potential to be connected to the internet in some way or form. So, it is cause for concern, because we don't really know how many of these machines are actually connected to the internet on election days.

At 5/13/18 09:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote: Out of interest, what’s your take on the Skripal incident?

At 5/13/18 02:34 PM, AcidX wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwbL89Vhcrk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd6cePLMxk8

Just like to say, the second one of them links was the wrong video. My bad, for not even reading the description. I meant to link this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj6R0qMpabA

Sorry if you watched that and it was confusing. I tend to watch the livestreams so forget the exacts days.
There is further reading into this: here.
I do find it majorly concerning how different the original story is, before the government intervened and started pointing fingers at Russia.

As for who did it? Not Russia.
Now the Skripal's have been discharged, it'll be interesting to see if there is any public interviews where they share their experiences. This is the test, to see whether there really is a D-notice in place ... because if not, they will end up on the Russian propaganda outlets, telling that same story. Then people like Edy will spin it as pro-Russian rhetoric. kek
Although we'll probably hear from the police man, who was also mysteriously poisoned! How could a credible source like a police man possibly be corrupted or lying?

This thing is fucking laughably fake news. Novichok is the deadliest nerve agent in the world. It kills. In under five minutes.

At 5/18/18 03:06 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: this is a false statement

way to tow the line.

Thanks, I forgot about that article. I remembered the number, I was thinking "wasn't it only like 10 machines were actually even accessible at all?"
I remember that embarrassing slip was also not covered anywhere on mainstream - not in the UK anyway. Hence I couldn't remember how to find the article.

At 5/18/18 06:16 PM, billybobthwarten wrote: you really just see what you want, don't you?

At 5/18/18 05:50 PM, EdyKel wrote: Stop thinking two dimensionaly. It don't matter what political spectrum runs government, you are resentful when the media doesn't reflect your views, which leads you to make up all this weird shit.

You're accusing my four dimensional thinking of being two dimensional?
I'm the one here actually linking these "isolated events" together. I'm the one looking back through history and looking at relative issues, where we've seen the exact same procedures carried out and forced upon us to push political agendas. This is not flat thinking. Also your statement is wrong. It's not about reflecting my views. It's about lies. It's about half-reporting the whole story. It's about the millions of UK citizens who agree with me.
Also, I'm not the one making any of this up? These articles and videos aren't me.

On that note:

According to you I'm a: Russian Conspiracy theorist technophobic luddite who believes the world is flat and is also religious

I forgot to mention that I'm also a teenager apparently.

Nope. I would consider you a slightly right leaning libertarian, an oxymoron, who often sides with the right on social issue such as immigration and Muslims, and Brexit, but differs on other issues.

Here we go again. More personal attacks to slander me and discredit my opinion.
Shall I make childish accusations now too? Are you one of our shill-bots? Are you working for the DNC??Or the CIA!?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Are you.. rage-posting??
That is not a legitimate response to any of those legit criticisms. Try again.

don't say that the media is in on it because that just further undermines your argument by indicating that you are more than willing to accept lesser proof to support alternatives stories.

I'm not really saying that. I'm saying that the media are given these stories and regulated in such a way that they can't report on anything else and can't report on it in any other way. Even the internet. ATVOD exist, UK Column were attacked by them in 2014 and it's ironically the exact same story now, 4 years on. They've also been getting attacked by Soros-backed groups like OpenDemocracy too. In attempts to close down their public events and prohibit the outreach of their important work.

At 5/18/18 08:04 PM, EdyKel wrote: any machine installed with remote-access software will be connected to it, regardless - to either update selection, monitor results, or even download those results, for reasons to cut cost, and out of convenience. At least half the state in the US use these types of electronic voting machines, which have the potential to be connected to the internet in some way or form. So, it is cause for concern, because we don't really know how many of these machines are actually connected to the internet on election days.

OH MY GOOD FUCKING GOD.
ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME THEN ISN'T IT.
They didn't know their hardware came pre-installed with OEM remote-access software!? This would have been clearly documented and definitely be told to the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE regarding such sensitive hardware. Fuck me, are you actually retarded?

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. This is what happens when you have fucking dinosaurs dictating the technological budget. This is what happens when any of these old luddites try and make a fake story centralised around technology! It's full of holes because they don't understand it at all. Years ago, you could call this shit out in an instant because the people coming up with the stories had less of a clue. Young kids could see through them because they understood the technology more. Now though they've become wiser; they're hiring younger people, who vaguely understand, to fabricate this shit. They're using secret services and intelligence networks to reinforce these claims (300+ squad). I wouldn't even say its become more sophisticated.. It's just become slightly more convincing to your average onlooker.

Anyway.
To conclude what I've been saying here, as I'm sick of repeating myself to one individual.

In case you can't make the connections here:
This whole anti-Russia, Russians are coming! Russia is bad nononono push from our media and the government... Is a lie. I'm not particularly pro-Russian but I am anti-lie. I don't like this globalist plan which is a violation of our rights and public interest. Global government is world domination and that's the very thing we try to demonise these "insane dictators" for.

The link here is clear. They attack wikileaks. They shut down megaupload and leave Kim Dotcom's entire family traumatised. They go after Aaron Schwartz for his contribution in all this who then kills himself because he doesn't want life in jail. This all happened around the same time. Within a year or two, we suddenly had a bunch of Russia-prejudice forced upon us and Putin's the next madman dictator we have to overthrow.

The Russian hacker story is nothing more than a thinly veiled mask to hide their war against wikileaks. Their war against whistleblowers and freedom of information. In the UK in particular, this is clearer than ever. Unlike America, we don't have free speech laws to protect us and the government/media are censoring the fuck out of anyone who speaks up or calls out this disgusting operation. It's more smoke and mirrors, to disguise from their own legal issues or failings - like the Westminster paedo coverup or illegal wars. To distract from things like the fact that Theresa May profits from Syrian airstrikes. It's fake news.

I'm sure our combined efforts - the UK, US and Israel + whoever else - disrupt Russian politics more than they could ever dream of disrupting ours.

Make up your own mind.

Mine is fixed, until I see data evidence of any claims they make which are going to ultimately cost lives.

At 5/19/18 06:05 AM, AcidX wrote:

At 5/18/18 05:50 PM, EdyKel wrote: Stop thinking two dimensionaly. It don't matter what political spectrum runs government, you are resentful when the media doesn't reflect your views, which leads you to make up all this weird shit.

You're accusing my four dimensional thinking of being two dimensional?

That's about the size of it. All you have displayed up to this point is this huge ego about yourself, while accusing everyone who doesn't acknowledge your views as sheep, while providing no proof to support your views. It's as as bad as Christians claiming they have the one true god.

I'm the one here actually linking these "isolated events" together. I'm the one looking back through history and looking at relative issues, where we've seen the exact same procedures carried out and forced upon us to push political agendas. This is not flat thinking. Also your statement is wrong. It's not about reflecting my views. It's about lies. It's about half-reporting the whole story. It's about the millions of UK citizens who agree with me.

"Isolated events" can lead to all sorts of directions, especially if you don't like the current story over something. People will use them to dispute a story by connecting it to a serious of other dots, which are selected facts, and other hazy stuff, to create their own story, but ultimately depend on that one "event". For example:

Your argument about the DNC files relies on Seth Rich. Without him your argument falls apart. But, you don't have any proof that he stole the files, or was killed because of it. All you have at this point is speculation, and inferences, while claiming you only believe in proof. You claim this isolated incident proves your point, because Seth Rich worked at the DNC, the download speeds, and because he was mysteriously killed, therefor you conclude that set Rich stole the files through physical access, and was killed because of that, with the government covering it up to protect the Democrats.

In order to make this work, you have to automatically discount anything the governments says (because you equate governments with corruption and controlling people), law enforcement ( since you believe they are controlled by government), private companies (since you also believe that they are controlled by government), and the media (since you believe they are state controlled). At the same time, you have an unwavering trust in people on the net, and those who released the files on Wikileaks, discounting any attempt that the download speeds were easily altered through other means, or that it could have been done by done by someone else, for other reasons. So, you are already discounting other sources, and facts, to keep your connect a dot, and prearranged, story.

At the same time, you are setting up rules, that you know you know can't follow. You talk of proof, but you don't have any, while defending those who claim to have it but don't show it. You talk of government transparency, while defending the lack of it in wiki leaks, and other entities. You accuse western governments of some conspiracy against you, while dismissing the idea that you could be part of one yourself from a foreign government. You accuse the medias of towing the Government lie, but explicitly trust those who tow the Russian lie. You inferred that Israel, and the CIA, are up to no good, because they have the technology, and skills, to hack foreign computers, and do other things, while diminishing Russia's capabilities to do similar things. And when people confront you on your double standards, you deflect by accusing them of being sheep.

These are just some of the reason why I don't take you serious. And is probably why the media doesn't take your types of views seriously either. You sound unhinged, making baseless accusations, which defy reality, and depend on custom made isolated incidents, and selected facts, to perfectly fit whatever narrative your are promoting - ignoring your own glaring hypocrisy, and huge ego and biases.

don't say that the media is in on it because that just further undermines your argument by indicating that you are more than willing to accept lesser proof to support alternatives stories.

I'm not really saying that. I'm saying that the media are given these stories and regulated in such a way that they can't report on anything else and can't report on it in any other way. Even the internet. ATVOD exist, UK Column were attacked by them in 2014 and it's ironically the exact same story now, 4 years on. They've also been getting attacked by Soros-backed groups like OpenDemocracy too. In attempts to close down their public events and prohibit the outreach of their important work.

Yes you are. I spent several posts dispelling your argument that the media is state owned in the UK. I gave you every opportunity to amend you opinion, but you keep altering it slightly to have the same argument. You keep saying it's regulated to tow the government line, while also showing clips from Sky News, and RT, which undermines your whole argument from the start. The rest of your arguments is just more conspiracy theories.

At 5/18/18 08:04 PM, EdyKel wrote: any machine installed with remote-access software will be connected to it, regardless - to either update selection, monitor results, or even download those results, for reasons to cut cost, and out of convenience. At least half the state in the US use these types of electronic voting machines, which have the potential to be connected to the internet in some way or form. So, it is cause for concern, because we don't really know how many of these machines are actually connected to the internet on election days.

OH MY GOOD FUCKING GOD.
ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME THEN ISN'T IT.
They didn't know their hardware came pre-installed with OEM remote-access software!? This would have been clearly documented and definitely be told to the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE regarding such sensitive hardware. Fuck me, are you actually retarded?

Not sure where all this came from. I told you, I don't trust people or governments. While you are so fixated in thinking I'm just thinking of Russia hacking these voting machines, I'm thinking anyone can hack them. That's the difference between you and me. You see thing in two dimensional ways, where you think it's only can come from one direction to the other, when I see it coming from multiple directions.

This whole anti-Russia, Russians are coming! Russia is bad nononono push from our media and the government... Is a lie. I'm not particularly pro-Russian but I am anti-lie. I don't like this globalist plan which is a violation of our rights and public interest. Global government is world domination and that's the very thing we try to demonise these "insane dictators" for.

You are pro-lie, because you want things to fit your narrative of a conspiracy that comes only from a government you don't like, while dismissing that you are part of another from another country - as long as they stoke your ego to make you think others are part of a conspiracy.

The link here is clear. They attack wikileaks. They shut down megaupload and leave Kim Dotcom's entire family traumatised. They go after Aaron Schwartz for his contribution in all this who then kills himself because he doesn't want life in jail. This all happened around the same time. Within a year or two, we suddenly had a bunch of Russia-prejudice forced upon us and Putin's the next madman dictator we have to overthrow.

True, Governments will go after Wikileaks, and dotcom, for the things they have done against them and their businesses. But I'm still waiting for someone to leak this actual conspiracy of creating a conspiracy about Russia. Plenty of whsitleblowers these days.

Make up your own mind.

Mine is fixed, until I see data evidence of any claims they make which are going to ultimately cost lives.

You don't know what you want. You are just a bundle of anger and hypocrisy. That's clear enough to me.

Wow this guy.
So there you have it guys. Apparently I’m now an an egotistical, teenage Russian conspiracy theorist technophobic Luddite who believes the world is flat and is religious.

In case you can’t tell... I have no ego. All that shit, pride ego and shame is a waste of your precious energy. I’m too fuckin old for that juvenile crap dude. I’m the least egotistical person you’ll ever meet. I hate lies. I hate manipulation. All of that is ego. So.. try again?
I’m not even angry? Or hypocritical.
I’m calling out the hypocrites? I’m not angry though. At what point have I been angry? Anybody??
Again, he's confused. Maybe even projecting his own rage onto me.
You’ve really gotta get over yourself and see past your prejudice disposition of me, for saying what you don’t want to hear.

So as you can see, Edy’s just mad that I can hold an argument and not bend or buckle to eat up his conformist dull opinion. Hes mad that I can confidently call out his state-sponsored bullshit and not be at all phased by his attacks. He’s mad that I don’t fall to my knees and praise our precious overlords. He also thinks the government would never lie to us. Even though they have consistently, in recent decades alone.

All he’s done is ramp up his attacks on me this whole time - and any other thread where I say stuff he doesn’t like.
Do not listen to a word this man says. He’s as full of lies, as the British government is (see above). All he does is throw these phrases around that the leftist censored media has given him, like ”conspiracy theorist” or “rebellious teenager” or “Russian bot”. All these prejudice terms, which exist solely to incite hate - which mean people can switch off and ignore whoever gets labelled as one. Besides, he doesn’t trust anyone on the internet. Why trust a thing he believes??

Secondly, the DNC hack doesn’t rely on Seth Rich at all. Although the Russian (or any) hack theory DOES rely on Russia/whoever rewiring the entire DNCs Internet, building two data exchanges and two satellites better than any in existence.
Seth Rich is easily the most believable and obvious theory on this existing conspiracy - due to his murder - but I even said myself that it could’ve been anyone within the DNC, or that it would’ve been easier for the so-called Russians to physically infiltrate in person. We simply do not know. Say what you like, it was definitely a local transfer. That’s why they won’t release server logs. It’ll say, it was a local usb transfer. No IP log, no Russian cache files. Good luck ever finding that private report. Won’t even be released under freedom of information in several decades, as it was entirely private. Regardless, that screenshot is the closest thing to actual data evidence and more than we’ve been given in any other direction. Beyond being told a very unbelievable story.

Thirdly.. you obviously know very little about the media in the UK or the state of our political landscape. Which is fine, by no means do I understand American broadcast regulation or their media guidelines, as it’s only clips I’ve seen online. The BBC is state owned. The rest of the media is heavily state controlled. YES, you are allowed to criticise the government. They are VERY ACTIVELY trying to change that though. See: closure of BrexitPartys 3 YouTube channels. See Count Dankula case. See Melanie Shaw. See wikileaks. See Tommy Robinson. See any journalist speaking out against this. See Americans like Lauren Southern trying to enter the UK. See attacks on UKColumn and their public events. This list is massive. Are these all Russians?? What is this? If it’s not censorship - the controlling of media - what is it? Define this then. Also, media can be state-controlled and still allow criticism of its government. Just because Russia doesn’t, it doesn’t mean the same rules exist for everyone. The odds of any government criticism getting any outreach or gaining any momentum is extremely unlikely because they will invent stupid stories like Russian Bots to trick people into thinking it was all an elaborate ruse. A bit like they did with the Skripal’s. Or they just...won’t report it. At all. Like Melanie Shaw and anything about wikileaks. Fuckin D-notices man. Learn what a D-notice is.

Fourthly, I’ve showed one Sky News clip. The point of which was to highlight PRECISELY HOW UNCREDIBLE your beloved mainstream sources are. If anything...that adds weight to my argument. Rather than detract from it. It was an “interview with a Russian Bot”. You can’t interview a fucking piece of script. People believe this Edy. Real people actually think this is real. Real people believe that man is a paid troll working for the Kremlin. I just..can’t even.
Sorry if you’re still mad that RT gives us more detailed and more complete stories than our own publications. (Seriously, just go read two articles about the same thing on BBC and RT, then see which one has more facts and sources).

Also, apparently when I say that maybe the CIA or maybe Unit 8200 did the hack.. that doesn’t count as saying anyone could have done it. When would (failed) governments ever betray or lie to the people omg. Actually, no.... I never said Russians hacked the DNC or the voting machines AT ALL (as in IT DIDNT HAPPEN) but apparently that’s two dimensional thinking. WRONG AGAIN EDYKEL. Get your facts straight.

Did I mention that Trump had a planned UK visit at the start of this year? In which, he planned on pardoning Assange. He said this publicly and was ready to go, then his visit was mysteriously cancelled and now Assange’s internet is cut off and he is possibly facing being expelled from the embassy. Hmmmmm.

Also I do know exactly what I want. People should ALWAYS make up their own mind, ABOUT ANYTHING. However, people don’t ALWAYS have more than one side of an argument. You can’t make up your own mind on a one-sided argument. By very definition that is BIAS.
Presenting them more than your one-sided rhetoric allows them to have discussion and actually see why reasonable doubt is cast over these issues.

also you’re still the only one here who even believes the mainstream media story at all lel

At 5/20/18 05:54 AM, AcidX wrote: Wow this guy.

the breakdown i tend to see, a lot of finger pointing and projection, a politically motivated movable moral compass, walls and walls of google information.

At 5/20/18 05:54 AM, AcidX wrote: So there you have it guys. Apparently I’m now an an egotistical, teenage Russian conspiracy theorist technophobic Luddite who believes the world is flat and is religious.

Son, don't make it worse for yourself. I doubt there is an audience that have been hanging off every word we say. And even if there was, I'm sure they already know what to think about all this.

At 5/20/18 11:49 AM, EdyKel wrote: I'm sure they already know what to think about all this.

I'm sure they do.

This fun conspiracy theory video goes into wikileaks funding a little more. Thought that you may enjoy it. Covers a lot of what we've discussed here too; has some pretty accurate analogies of the 'Russiagate' situation.
Not asking you to believe it all but you should definitely have a watch, if you got the time.

At 5/22/18 07:29 AM, AcidX wrote:

At 5/20/18 11:49 AM, EdyKel wrote: I'm sure they already know what to think about all this.

I'm sure they do.

This fun conspiracy theory video goes into wikileaks funding a little more. Thought that you may enjoy it. Covers a lot of what we've discussed here too; has some pretty accurate analogies of the 'Russiagate' situation.
Not asking you to believe it all but you should definitely have a watch, if you got the time.

Rather boring... Few interesting points, but overall pretty boring. It should be more like Mountain Monsters. That shit is fucking hilarious, with these overweight, gun toting, red necks, who build traps, and chase after imaginary sounds in the dead of night. Hilarity ensues.

At 5/22/18 11:44 AM, EdyKel wrote: It should be more like Mountain Monsters. That shit is fucking hilarious, with these overweight, gun toting, red necks, who build traps, and chase after imaginary sounds in the dead of night. Hilarity ensues.

I dunno man. Sounds like there might be bears. Pretty sure they have bears in Russia. They might be Russians dude. Not sure I can trust that show.

Moonshiners was funny too.

motha fucka yall talking about arguments n shit and tha illuyrminati b tryina get yall americans and russians to double down on some legal nootropic chemical commerce and yall be just like.... arguin n shit?

At 5/22/18 05:40 PM, Sause wrote:

At 5/19/18 12:37 PM, Sause wrote: im a state-sponsored russian hacker ask me anything

Guys...?

According to conspiracy theorists, that's the HTMCD -X1984 (Homing Toupee Mind Controlling Device), that the defense department funded in an offshore secret account for the development of.The HTMCD was created by a mad scientist, and illegal alien (no, an actual illegal alien from outer space with green skin and 2 penis like antennas), named Bobbles, in a super secret underground laboratory, underneath a spooky mansion on the hill, next to a eerie cemetery, which sits next to a school with impressionable young kids. Not as good as the mustache prototype (seen here), but way better than the pubic hair version (which caused rashes, and self groping of the crotch -see Michael Jackson). The main locomotion of the HTMCD is blowing in the wind, or using it's follicles as arms, and legs, to walk or pull it's way around. It would target certain individuals, preferably bald headed, or thin haired individuals, or those with too much of it that it's presence would not be noticed, like 80's pop stars, and attach itself to them. Once attached it would blend in with the natural, or unnatural, hair color of the host, with chameleon like qualities. From there it would drill probing follicles into the ear, and into the brain, to make a connection. From there it would.....

Gguy,sguys Did you know that John Pilger worked for Open Society that one time?
Open Society is actually George Soros. Maybe if John Pilger worked for George Soros, he is George Soros? Think about it. Have you ever seen them in the same room together? I mean really? and not just photoshop.
Anyway in case you haven't figured it out yet, George Soros is responsible for the hack and all of the wiki open-society leak codes.

So does this put Kim Dotcom as illuminati? What if megaupload data was actually illuminati data and was seized, then stored and used in the DNC building? Do you think perhaps he did the hack because he is working for Putin? Maybe Putin is trying to hack the illuminati. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
What if actually this whole time Julian Assange wasn't even really a programmer and just worked for Israel as a PsyOp? Like Edward Snowden is Obama NSA whistle boi.
Don't you think what if maybe the Russians had wanted the Skripal's dead they would have just given them some leaked files instead? Clearly this is a more effective way to dispose of someone quickly. I think it's quite obvious that whoever did it was trying to send a message. The message wasn't encrypted either.

Anyway I can't wait for the next Russian Bot interview to explain all that. The only loose end here is Aaron Schwartz so I think that puts him most likely responsible for the murder of Seth Rich. Either that or must've been Tommy Robinson or another agent of Soros.

At 5/22/18 08:34 PM, AcidX wrote: Gguy,sguys Did you know that John Pilger worked for Open Society that one time?
Open Society is actually George Soros. Maybe if John Pilger worked for George Soros, he is George Soros? Think about it. Have you ever seen them in the same room together? I mean really? and not just photoshop.
Anyway in case you haven't figured it out yet, George Soros is responsible for the hack and all of the wiki open-society leak codes.

So does this put Kim Dotcom as illuminati? What if megaupload data was actually illuminati data and was seized, then stored and used in the DNC building? Do you think perhaps he did the hack because he is working for Putin? Maybe Putin is trying to hack the illuminati. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
What if actually this whole time Julian Assange wasn't even really a programmer and just worked for Israel as a PsyOp? Like Edward Snowden is Obama NSA whistle boi.
Don't you think what if maybe the Russians had wanted the Skripal's dead they would have just given them some leaked files instead? Clearly this is a more effective way to dispose of someone quickly. I think it's quite obvious that whoever did it was trying to send a message. The message wasn't encrypted either.

Anyway I can't wait for the next Russian Bot interview to explain all that. The only loose end here is Aaron Schwartz so I think that puts him most likely responsible for the murder of Seth Rich. Either that or must've been Tommy Robinson or another agent of Soros.

Never understood the whole Soros thing. He's like the bogeyman of the right, and anti-globalists, even though he's not the richest person in the world, and doesn't even rank in the top 10 in the US. I think people just ignore the fact that there are 10's of millions of people who directly benefit, and get wealthy, from trade with other countries, as a reason they support globalization. That's a better explanation than claiming it's being steered by some shadowy group led by one guy.