The media losing credibility for lying :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Printable View
The media losing credibility for lying :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Found y'all new wallpaper
https://i.imgur.com/U1uVhXS.jpg
Homicide in Mozambique!
http://i.imgur.com/95Uooyp.jpg
More from Craig Murray on the claim that Russia is behind the "hacks" relating to Clinton...
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...uses-keyboard/
Sorry, opposite of a shitpost, can't help it
http://i.imgur.com/nyboclF.gif
y'all boring af
The last thing you posted never even appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
tried to d-v the gifvQuote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
http://i.imgur.com/1GfW0D2.mp4
opening paragraph is the onion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
lol that is funny
Too many lols
https://i.imgur.com/2cLjKTu.png
He only started giving it the big one when Obama was leaving, if anything he thinks Trump will be the bitch. Otherwise why bother trying to gain status if Trump is going to "run" things.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
lol, President von Clownstick
Quote:
Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!
You gotta admit he's gangster at pwnage. Nothing beats his godstomping letter to Mark Cuban, but this will do for the New Year.
Who's he pwning? He sounds like a goofy teenager.
pwnage is the language of teenagers.
stuffy is the language of those who can't pwn.
Exactly. It's the kind of language that makes teenagers respect you and adults think you're a social moron.
I agree that adults have a long way to go to respecting pwnage.
They do. Just like Trump has a ways to go to becoming an adult.
No, sorry, but adult is defined by age, and not by an individual's concept of how an adult behaves.
Serious adult when it matters; blasting dorks when it matters.
Yup, blasting Vanity Fair, SNL, Hamilton, etc. were all matters of national security. Had nothing to do with being a narcissistic baby. Lol what a clown.
well played.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh I see. So maturity is what defines "adult" to you. Sadly, this is a poor measure, for the simple reason "maturity" is open to interpretation. Age is not, which is why I prefer this measure.
Being petulant and obnoxious is not behaviour exclusive to children. We're talking about a 70 y/o billionaire here. Saying he's not an adult is about as effective insult as saying he's not American.
You're saying adults can never act childish, because they are older than children?
Have you seen his long form birth certificate?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why would I contest that he's over 18? You're trying to make the argument about something completely different - because you know I'm right.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Effective is subjective. It makes me laugh and that's good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But you're not right, which is the only reason I'm even bothering to argue this point. Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump is an adult. Google the word "adult" and see what it actually means. It's a very different definition to "mature".Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
No, I'm saying that if an adult acts like a child, he is still an adult. If a dog goes meow, is it a cat? No, it's a fucking dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
No, but I haven't seen yours either.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You're absolutely right that a literal interpretation of what I said did not match what I meant. Good job on picking that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If a dog goes meow and starts trying to fuck cats, and you say 'he has a long way to go to becoming a dog', you're not actually disputing whether or not he's really a dog. You're saying he's not acting like a dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You see, in language sometimes people use single words like 'adult' to stand in for 'act like an adult', since they assume other people have the sense to figure out the true meaning from the context.
Dogs behave like dogs. It's our human interpretation of how we think dogs should act, and indeed cats, that has us thinking "that dog has a long way to go before he's acting like a dog".
If you think a 70 y/o man is not acting like an adult, Mr Trump doesn't need to change his behaviour to become an adult, you need to change your criteria.
It's like if I called you a window-licking retard for making a big deal out of how I used the word 'adult' there. It wouldn't mean I actually think you lick windows and have an IQ below seventy since you clearly don't, it would be a way of expressing what I think of your behavior.
Not at all. We see patterns of behavior in dogs and cats that are different. Thus it's easy to conjure up examples of how they behave differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Mr. Trump doesn't get to write the playbook on how adults behave. If he acts in ways that are more typical of a juvenile than a grown man, then pointing that out it is perfectly legitimate. In fact it's what a lot of people do with Mr. Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Tired of not winning yet?
Neither do you. That's because there is no playbook. And that's why your initial comment is nothing but empty rhetoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
At this point I'd just like to remind you of the title of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't think you can tell yet when I'm being serious and when I'm not. This is pure pedantry on my part. I'm not making a big deal of it, I'm being a dick, and you're making a big deal of it by not just saying "yes ong, you're technically right, well done, now shut up".
The thing that makes my responses to your being a dick so clever is that by acting like i was taking your bullshit seriously, I made you think I actually believed you were really dumb enough to believe the crap you were saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Live and learn, grasshopper. Live and learn.
Get in! I got you to think I was taking you seriously! Suck a dick!
Ah but you cracked first: "Oh you don't know me, I was only joking. Oh please don't be mad."
Lol you my bitch today.
Here's where I tell you I was being serious all along with the "adult" thing, and it's now I'm trolling you.
Check fucking mate.
That's right, dance some more little puppet. Keep dancing.
I said checkmate. There's no comeback from there.
Still dancing? Wow, my power over you is even greater than I thought.
I played some chess on NYE, I really suck when I'm drunk. Much more so than other people. I wonder why that is.
I don't play chess when I'm drunk. What's the point? I play chess because I want to play well and feel smug.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
BREAKING: the left's god endorses Trump!!!
https://electrek.co/2017/01/06/tesla...on-renewables/
That hacking thing turned out to be total nonsense huh? Using a program a nation-state wouldn't get caught dead with and stuff. A+ Democrats at getting caught in their corruption then obfuscating by planting a hoax that takes eyes off their corruption.
Looking forward to when Chieftess Fibbing Goof gets stomped in 2020
http://i.imgur.com/SitEFD9.jpg
Yup, sounds pretty dodgy to me. I think the last time every intelligence agency agreed on something it was Saddam having WMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I also think MSNBC is turning into the left's Fox News. I guess they deserve one.
Still, Trump sounded kind of dumb there.
He always sounds dumb.
loooooollllllllllllll
http://i.imgur.com/eKYaOgi.png
There's as little unclarity about russian involvement in the dem hacks as there is in the Israeli and US involvement in the Iran nuclear facility hacks (stuxnet).
Really? Because they tell you so? Or because you've seen the evidence, and if so, please share.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
No, I analyzed the logs myself. How else than "they told you so" do you know anything? Show me proof that US and Israel made Stuxnet. Obviously there isn't any publicly available proof, which means there isn't any to the contrary either.
That's the problem with this kind of evidence - intelligence agencies can give us their answers without having to tell us what they're based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I withhold judgment on the whole Russian hacking thing for that reason. Maybe true, maybe not.
Where did this "so it was all a hoax" stuff come from? Let me guess just from Trump. Surely everyone can decide for themselves who's more reliable, him or the whole intelligence community. And yes, it is entirely possible that it's a huge conspiracy where they all colluded to mislead the public, but on whose orders? Hillary's? Comey's? I'd ask Mr William of Ockham.
The Trump crowd doesn't necessarily think it's a hoax. I think it could have come from Russia; the problem is that it hasn't been demonstrated. The evidence released by the government is paltry. There are ways this could more reasonably be a false flag (though I don't think it is). I'm seeing lots of people who know this stuff better than me say that a 400 pound hacker from Zaire could have left the same trail that they're saying now confirms it was always and only Russia.
The other thing the Trump crowd says is "and?". So, Putin outsmarted a dummy Podesta in a private entity (DNC is not government) and merely released to the public what he found? And these findings are a bunch of shady shit by the DNC and Putin is more or less acting as whistleblower (a thing the pre-Trump left used to extol)? And all evidence points to the election itself not being fiddled with at any level (except possible pro-Democrat possible cheating in Detroit) And, yet, the narrative is a colossus of "RUSSIA BAD!"?
I think the "Trump crowd" (whoever that is) needs to stop with that line of thinking. They're being trolled, and should wake up and realize it. While everything you said there may be true, the other side already knows it, and chose to ignore it before even starting this discussion. The goal of the discussion has nothing to do with determining the source, assigning blame, or retaliating.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Every second you spend saying "maybe it wasn't Russia" is just you being trolled into saying things that make you look bad. Regardless of how true or logical the things you are saying are....they are contradictory to the established public narrative. And when you defy common knowledge, you look dumb. The "trump crowd" is being trolled into looking dumb. They should stop falling for it.
They should stick to this....and only this. Let the other side respond, and expose their flimsy, distracting arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The only reason this "RUSSIA BAD" narrative came about, was to weaken Trump's ability to govern. It's a desperate tantrum from the left seeking to undermine trump's authority, strip him of his mandate, and cast a cloud of doubt over his victory that makes him ineffective as a leader. Every second you spend feeding that narrative, even with logical arguments, just serves their purpose.
Let's not kid ourselves. Our own CIA has meddled in more than a few foreign elections. To believe that other countries aren't trying to do the same thing to us, is naive. Podesta and the DNC made themselves vulnerable and got phished. That's on them.
The real question is...why? What was the motive for the hacking?
Intelligence sources disagree about this. There is no evidence of motive, and any conclusion is entirely speculative. There is a prominent argument that says Trump was helped by the hacking, so the motive of the hacking must have been to help Trump. That's a simple, easy to follow narrative that anyone can buy into, especially when they were just stunned by the election results and are desperate for an explanation.
A more thoughtful conclusion looks at the timing of the hacks, and notices that it corresponds to a time when Trump's 'hot mic' comments were destroying his poll numbers. In that light, it seems somewhat likely that the motivation of the hack was to impair the trust and reputation of an incoming President Clinton, not propel a Trump victory. I don't think Putin predicted a Trump win, nor do I think he would have looked at the polls and thought that hacking Podesta might swing the election. I don't think Putin would espouse an idea so silly.
With all that said, I don't think many american's votes were swayed by anything exposed in the hack. On the other hand, the massive media coverage of the information exposed certainly distracted from other campaign narratives. Every second spend talking about hacks detracts from time that could be spent talking about issues. Or.....more practically speaking.....every second spent talking about hacks takes away from time that could be spent bashing Trump. So in that sense, the hacking probably did sway a few votes
So yeah..."RUSSIA BAD" should be the narrative. They meddled in an election they had no business meddling in. They did it for no other reason than propaganda against what they believed as an incoming president. That's really really bad.
The problem is....that "RUSSIA BAD" narrative could have been used in August. How come Obama didnt' sanction russia and kick the diplomats out five months ago?
The answer is, no one really cared. No one thought that the leaks would sway the election, and no one was really surprised that Putin was capable of dirty tricks. Par for the course really.
What irks me, is that the other side has now manufactured outrage over this hacking as a means to weaken and de-legitimize Trump. They are doing exactly what Russia tried to do to Hillary. If it was bad then, it's bad now.
http://i.imgur.com/1YG2C57.png
The funny thing is that I'm actually super stoked about the potential alliance between America and Russia (and maybe even UK and France) regarding Islamism.
The media straight up does not cover how much terrible crime is caused by rapefugees. It's almost every day there's another story in Sweden or Germany about Islamists on welfare raping some native women, and then usually it gets swept under the rug and the women get called bigots. Given how bad it is in Sweden now, don't be surprised if within a few hundred years it becomes yet another of the nations that Islam invades and eradicates all non-Islam. Happened in Syria, happened in Iraq, happened in Turkey, happened in many other places, and it's on path in Europe.
Oops sorry this was only 1/3rd a shitpost
To people speaking truth, we tend to not care so much about looking bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The evidence that it was Russia is shit. Good on those of us who say so.
Us+Russia v china.
Not a bad strat, but I don't like Russia.
The "hacks" irk me because they make America look weak.
I don't think this is a coincidence on the part of those spreading the narrative. Tons (most?) representatives of America don't seem to like America that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Hacks? The word you're looking for is "leaks".
Soo, now that Trump admitted that the hack (yes hack, as in a spearfish attack to DNC personnel to access the systems, not an insider leak) was done by Russians, as well as an attempted to hack of the RNC, please spin this for me. Aaand ACTION.
I never doubted the Intel because of anything Trump said. I doubted it because of their track record of being experts in propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Therefore, Trump changing his stated opinion has no influence on my opinion. Still a skeptic.
Show me.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Also, is "spin" really what you think I do?
I'm pretty sure I found what you're referring to: in the press conference, he says "as far as hacking, I think it was Russian....and many others....hacking..."
This is basically Trump saying that they don't know who did it. Which is what people who know things about how easy and common it is to hide your tracks when hacking say should be expected.
You realise hiding your tracks whilst hacking is incredibly hard right?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm roughly 66% that it's bona fide rather than intentional.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It's him saying he's not disputing the reports by the intelligence community, which state that Russia was behind them. He also said that Russia is not the only country launching various attacks towards the US, which is of course true.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
As ImSavy said, hiding your tracks, especially from someone with the resources of a nation state, is definitely not easy. I'm one of the people who know things about it.
Explain.
Which part?
I have to assume it’s this part
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Sometimes, karma manifests itself as a wet bitch allegedly hahahaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VigvdWezawI
Ok, it's what I get paid for.
I think he was looking for a more technical explanation. How do you go about tracing a hacker?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I'm looking for description on what precautions the Russian government has to not employ in order for the Russian government to be pinpointed as the hacker. From everything I've read, avoiding tracking during hacking involves well understood technical protocols, and that when people get caught hacking it is typically because they made some really dumb mistakes.
I'm curious why it seems so hard to find so many hackers except for when the people who hate Trump want to.
Which examples of hackers are you talking about that don't get caught?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You can make it a pain to find out who did it. So varying degrees of expertise are needed to the point where it very quickly becomes not worth it to find out who did it but that's very different. Like downloading a film illegally you can no doubt make it too much effort to find out it was you and no one really cares all that much. Take some significant money out of banks and I imagine you'd have a hard time getting away with it otherwise why wouldn't people do it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
As you may understand, this is a wildly broad subject, kind of like asking what precautions do bank robbers have to not employ in order to get caught. I don't have data on how the attack was done on a technical level, but I can make a fairly conceivable assumption based on how previous similar hacks have happened, on which we do have more detailed info.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Everything you do on the net creates a trace of information, traffic and connection logs, packet headers, addresses, digital fingerprints. In this case the breach was apparently done using a spearfishing attack, a targeted and customized attack on the DNC personnel. It could have been for example an email sent to a DNC employee, seemingly coming from a colleague or a trusted contact containing a link or an attachment, that the person is tempted to open. I don't mean a nigerian letter or a viagra ad, possibly a legitimate document that would be perfectly expected to be coming from that person, with an injected malware. This malware, most likely custom made for this purpose and employing possibly unknown 0-day vulnerabilities would infect the machine and give the attackers access to everywhere the target had access.
This attack would leave trace evidence in the ISP traffic logs, DNC firewalls, routers, mail gateways and possible intrusion detection systems, on their mail server, on the target's workstation, DNS servers and other systems in the network. The malware code very often includes data that can point to the direction of the attacker, such as compiling timestamps, patterns, etc. Even if the code is custom, parts of it is often reused, and can give hints to who wrote it. Any sane attacker of course tries to cover their tracks and uses several proxies/hops in various countries for any connections to the target systems, but doing all of it without leaving any trackable evidence is tedious and complicated. Hackers are human, they make mistakes.
It is hard, and it takes a lot of resources, which are better used for investigating high-level acts of espionage rather than some kid stealing nudies from celebrity iphones.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
ItwasfoQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
und out that stuxnet was nation sponsored by the US and Israel against Iran, and this was in the pre-Troll Doll days.
Individuals looking for people who downloaded their torrents can be hard. A whole nation, with the resources of the NSA and people like Snowden looking for you, you can bet your ass they will find you no matter how hard you cover your tracks and how deep you hide in the darknet
Why do you make the narrative only about his Trumpness?
Thanks for the info guys.
It doesn't have to be, but we've certainly grown weary of it due to all the fake news stories that try to take him down. Like the one that happened a few days ago: pissgate. The media pushed a "story" that they even admitted at the time could be wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
On the Russia thing, assuming it is Russia (which it may well be), does this justify the main ideas the media has thrown around? No. They're still wrong that the election was tampered with, they're still wrong that this means something nefarious regarding Putin and Trump, and they're still wrong that the problem is the whistleblower instead of the shady actors revealed by the whistleblower. The real stories about evidence that Russia hacked the DNC are (1) what does this mean about Russia's intentions regarding the Dems/Clinton and the GOP/Trump (this is different than assuming it's nefarious between Putin/Trump), (2) what does this mean regarding the state of state-level cyber security, and (3) wow look at all this horrible shit done by the DNC and Clinton and the media. But no, Fake News set aside pursuit of reason and truth and instead pushed the narrative that would best de-legitimize Trump.
I just google around and see that it seems the conventional wisdom is that there are hackers that utilize standard technical protocols, and the ones that get caught typically end up doing something like boasting on social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Question: I think it is reasonable to assume the Russian government would use proxies and other related tools. Let's say they hack from Secret KGB Headquarters Beneath Putin's House, jumping through proxy in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Thailand. Is this typically traceable back to Secret KGB Headquarters Beneath Putin's House?
Second Question: When the US government "determines" that a hack came from the Russian state, are they really finding that the source of the hack originated from a known government potential-hacking building or is the origin really just located somewhere within Russia's borders?
You guys still using the word "hack" instead of "leak"?
#wikihacks
Inb4 republicans swiftly impeach trump, so they can have pence.
I would lol. I can think of a reason they wouldn't do that (most of them would not be reelected).
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Untrue. Most of them are untouchable and the Republicans have developed some amazing voter suppression and redistricting skills. Once they have enough dirt on him there won't be too many people that will be able to argue against impeachment.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Very much depends on what they are doing. It is very easy to make it a pain to track you to the point places like local police have no chance so I imagine that most people who get in shit tor stuff do give themselves away but that doesn't back up what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It is best to think of it as hiding. You can hide really well but you are still always there.
Lol did anyone see the pile of 'documents' Trump brought to his press conference? Just a bunch of unlabeled folders full of apparently blank papers.
Another funny thing was how he brought his own cheering section. I'm thinking 'why is the press cheering for him?'.
Refusing to answer the reporter from CNN was pretty funny too.
The guy is such a farce...no way he lasts four years.
Wow, just wow....hack this and hack that.....standard for the msm and "intelligence" conglomerate. repeat a lie so many times that the american sheeple begin to believe it...ala, the gulf of tonkin incident or/and wmd in Iraq.
Has no one who reads this thread read or watched the interview with Jullian Assange in which he categorically denied any Russian involvement, stating that the hacks were actually leaks from DNC insiders?
sheeze.....smfh
Oh hi shotty, glad I'm not the only person who prefers to talk about leaks instead of hacks.
I didn't see the Assange interview, I read the blog of one of his friends, former British ambassador Craig Murray. He's "former" because he resigned on principle many years ago. Or he got sacked by the Home Secretary for being a man of principle, whichever way you prefer to look at it. The British government don't like their ambassadors to oppose the use of torture.
Anyway, he is close friends with Assange. It's thanks to Murray that I even give Assange any credit.
Yeah, Assange is often just a twatwaffle who has ABSOLUtelY no love for the US gubmintQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hay, Ong...would you mind pm'ing me the url of Murray's blog? Probly makes for a good read