Cybersecurity

Hey Media: Let's Not Turn Russian Hackers into the Next WMDs, Okay?

Please stop ignoring that government officials have agendas.

|

Assange
Dominic Lipinski/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Russian government hackers have taken control over our power grid! Oh, wait … no … never mind. A laptop not connected to the power grid at all had some malware on it that does not appear to be connected to the Russian government after all.

You'll be forgiven for having ignored this final absurd international cybersecurity story of 2016 in favor of celebrating the passing of a year many folks couldn't wait to see end. On Friday evening, The Washington Post reported that hackers connected to the Russian government had penetrated the United States electrical grid through a Vermont power company, and the culprits were the same hacking group President Barack Obama's administration had associated with getting the release of internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.

The story spread like wildfire through social media, particularly among those unhappy with President-Elect Donald Trump's warm relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his open skepticism of federal intelligence reports. Except the story turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Very quickly it turned out that the infected computer was not connected to the power grid and that the hackers (Russian or otherwise) did not gain access to the power plant. And by Monday, The Washington Post had reported that it didn't even appear that Russian hackers were even involved.

The Post relied on anonymous government sources for its reporting, and when dealing with cybersecurity and tech issues there are so many opportunities for information to go awry. Relying on anonymous information from intel officials deliberately trying to shield themselves from taking responsibility for such leaks is a bad idea. In fairness to the Post, it very quickly corrected its mistakes, though it came after the story spread far and wide.

It's very easy—and relevant—to look at what happened with this report and reflect back on the insistence from government sources that Saddam Hussein was hoarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Trump himself pointed this comparison out even before Friday's news blitz, attempting to shield himself from criticism for any connection to the DNC hack.

America went to war over WMDs and many, many people died, Americans and Iraqis (and others). It seems unlikely that a response as extreme would happen between the U.S. and Russia, even had Hillary Clinton won instead of Trump. Nevertheless, we should all be very concerned at the possibility of not just history repeating, but for both media outlets and government intelligence officials to repeat their roles in helping make it happen.

It's so easy to screw up reporting on cybersecurity (CNN was roundly mocked for using a screenshot from video game Fallout 4 to accompany its coverage of Russian sanctions to show what hacking looked like). Even before the initial Washington Post report was corrected, there was a big red flag buried deep within it. The initial reporting acknowledged that any "hacking" that took place happened because whoever was operating the computer in question clicked on a link from a phishing email that installed malware on the computer. Just as with the hack in the Democratic National Convention case, this isn't just a situation of a malicious intruder forcing his way into a system. He or she or they were invited in because of poor security practices on the user end.

It's very important to remind folks of this component of cybersecurity vulnerability because otherwise this debate becomes about "What should America do to countries that engage in cyberespionage?" instead of "What should America do to prevent cyberespionage?" The difference between those two questions is very relevant. The first question creates an environment of intrusion and intervention in other countries. The second question creates an environment of protecting America from threats and making our defenses stronger. On a very fundamental level, it's the same debate America has frequently over foreign military interventions, though we can hope this particular debate won't result in more random civilians in countries where America doesn't even have military authorizations being bombed by drones.

As for the "hacking" of the Democrats that prompted sanctions from the White House, Julian Assange at Wikileaks is insisting that the Russian government is not the source of the information. Assange will be interviewed live tonight by Sean Hannity at Fox News. If what Assange says is true, that means the source of the leak is not anonymous. As Michael Moynihan (of Reason's Fifth Column podcast) noted, this puts Assange at odds at his previous statements that Wikileaks has been set up so that they don't know the sources of their information. It's possible that Wikileaks knows who the source of the DNC emails are because they received them in a different fashion than usual. Maybe that will be explained in tonight's interview.

Over the holiday weekend, Nick Gillespie pointed out the problems with treating Putin with the same kind of boogeyman status as the leaders of the former Soviet Union. And Ed Krayeweski warned last week of the damage to our own government's credibility for punishing other countries for leaking information that helps Americans see how the political sausage is truly made.

NEXT: Publicly-Funded Stadiums 'Completely Ruled Out' By Missouri's Governor-Elect

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh, but they will.

    And they’ve convinced the partisan brain-dead, blinded progs in the ranks.

  2. They targeted the Vermont public utilities so they could trigger a catastrophic meltdown…at the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream factory.

    WAKE UP SHEPPLE!!!

    1. I’m pretty sure half the computers in America have some sort of malware that originated in Russia.

      1. And at least twenty tool bars because one isn’t enough.

        1. You can take my Bonzi Buddy from my cold, dead hands.

          1. #DicksOutForBonziBuddy

    2. A communist plot to destroy our access to 27 flavors of ice cream?!? Man your stations, boys. We begin bombing in five minutes.

      1. I refuse to go to war over socialist ice cream.

        1. All we’ll be left with is Red Ice Cream that tastes like chalk.

        2. Have you even had Ben and Jerry’s? You would be picking up your AR-15 pronto, if you had.

        3. Jerry and Ben both mouth the mandatory peoples’ republic (of Vermont) propaganda, but at seven bucks a pint, their actions betray them as closet capitalists.

          1. Like most self-described socialists (and, for that matter, self-described capitalists), they don’t actually understand what “socialism” and “capitalism” mean.

      2. 27 flavors of ice cream? No country needs 27 flavors of ice cream!

    3. Not to mention the weapons plant that Bernie Sanders got Lockheed Martin to build in Burlington.

      1. Wait, is that an employee-owned coop? Weapons for the people.

        1. If you want to give The People F-35s, i’d have to ask why you hate The People.

      1. Bleating and babbling we fell on his neck with a scream…

        1. You better watch out. There may be dogs about! (see downthread)

  3. It’s so easy to screw up reporting on cybersecurity (CNN was roundly mocked for using a screenshot from video game Fallout 4 to accompany its coverage of Russian sanctions to show what hacking looked like).

    That’s not easy, that’s borderline mentally deficient. Also, very funny.

    1. Hadn’t heard that one. I larfed, audibly.

  4. The US government NEVER hacks another nation’s computers and they most certainly NEVER attempt to influence anyone else’s elections.

    YAWN!

    1. As always, that’s different.

    2. Franky! Thanks for not reluctantly droning me again today!

      1. You were supposed to post that one as “dajjal”, Weigel. You’re slipping in your downfall into total insanity.

        1. It’s ok daddy I’m safe now. I don’t need your ‘protection’ any more. 🙂

    3. Carlos Castillo Armas, the Padlavi Shah, and Augusto Pinochet all agree.

      1. And ask Iran what happened to their centrifuges…

      2. What’s boris yeltsin, chopped liver?

        1. With the amount he drank, mostly yes.

    4. If this ever happened and Obama read about it in the paper, I’m sure he would put an end to it immediately.

    5. +1 Stuxnet virus

  5. But Bush was singlehandedly responsible for the WMD lie. The intelligence agencies had nothing to do with it. Bush tricked them all. Then he tricked all the Democrats to vote for the war. Then he went back in time and lied to Bill Clinton so that he was convinced Saddam was developing WMDs. One thing Trump is great at doing is flipping the narratives, and showing just how tribal Democrats and Republicans are. They will switch positions on every single issue depending on if its their guy or the other guy saying it.

    1. Stupid and evil aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but I kinda doubt anyone could be as evil and as dumb as the left’s GW caricature. Your stupidity would start getting in the way of your malice well before the presidency, I would think. He seemed not very dissimilar to past presidents, to me.

      1. I think he was just inarticulate more than anything, which can make someone seem very stupid at first glance.

  6. WaPo has published a string of anti-Putin articles that later had to be retracted (e.g. the PropOrNot fiasco). They are trying to instigate a cyber war with Russia. However they are being played by the intelligence community, which much prefers to join the axis of the alt-Righteous – USA-Russia-Israel – to threaten the rest of the world with nukes for oil and used panties. They are setting the stage for Trump to purge the ‘incompetents’ who pushed this junk. (And yes it’s a neo-McCarthyist witch hunt.)

    1. the Cyber war is really just a ruse to control the internet and limit what people can do on the internet.

  7. The Post relied on anonymous government sources for its reporting, and when dealing with cybersecurity and tech issues there are so many opportunities for information to go awry. Relying on anonymous information from intel officials deliberately trying to shield themselves from taking responsibility for such leaks is a bad idea.

    An even worse idea: not bothering to call up Burlington Electric before running a hot story about how their company is riddled with Russian viruses. What the fuck is going on at some of these publications?

    1. Look, there just isn’t enough time to wait for all the facts to get in. The Russian Menace must be dealt with, even if you have to publish Fake News to do it.

    2. “not bothering to call up…What is going on ”

      We’ve got Reason editors working for the Post now?

  8. People literally think that programming a computer is knowing which ‘codes’ to use. When you realize that it makes it pretty funny to watch people talk about it.

    1. People literally think that programming a computer is knowing which ‘codes’ to use.

      Forgive me for reading this sentence so literally, but isn’t that true?

      1. Depends on what they think “codes” means.

        1. If you use this code on my projects, I will fucking fire your ass:

          strcpy, memcpy, memset, etc.

  9. Michael Moynihan (of Reason’s Fifth Column podcast)

    Is it Reason’s podcast? Check your sources, Smackmore!

    1. Uh, yes, in the sense that Reason is now a subsidiary publication of Kmele Foster Industries.

      1. LOL – so true! Look at you!!!!

      2. But will Kmele divest himself when he launches his Foster-TBA 2020 campaign?

        1. He’d have to. I mean, he’s got more money than God.

          1. Kmele makes it rain more often than The Gulf of Mexico.

            1. Kmele recently purchased some land in southern Europe in order to have a place to get away from it all. That land? Monaco.

              1. Kmele is gonna convert all of Monaco into a giant laser and write his name into the moon.

                1. +1 ha.

                  1. I mean due to my username I have say something about supervillains writing their name on the moon. Even if it’s just a sarcastic ‘oh no, stop doing that.’

        2. He’ll transfer ownership to his dog.

        3. As far as I’m concerned, that campaign launched during the Gary Johnson interview. Did I put my Foster-Johnson 2020 yardsign up too soon?

          1. Things that foster the johnson should probably be kept indoors.

        4. TBA was against same-sex marriage recognition when he was governor.

          1. Keep fighting, little guy. With your support of the Bluth Foundation, we’ll live in a galaxy where “T.B.A.” does not exist.

    2. Kmele would never belong to a cosmo organization!!!!!

      1. No, no. IT belongs to HIM. He beat the Koch brothers and the Sultan of Brunei in a fierce bidding war.

  10. I often wish we had access to alternate universes, because you just know that if Hillary had won, the notion that Russia influenced the election would have died on the vine right after her victory speech.

    1. And then a lot of people would have died when she got into a war with Russia over Syria.

      1. Another zinger, CX! L00k at YOOOUUUUU!!!!

        1. Your butthurt is showing.

            1. I used to respond to the troll, and now it gabbles at me whenever i comment. It’s not really a big deal.

              1. i figured it was a crazy stalker situation.
                best of luck.

    2. Another interesting alternate universe is the one in which the Russians leaked some dirt on Trump (or were accused of doing so), and Hillary won the election as a result, and all the Lefties ran out into the street to celebrate, singing the praises of our wise Russian allies and waving miniature Russian flags.

  11. More proof that the “Fake News” hysteria being pushed by the media is just self-serving horseshit.

    Meanwhile, Democrats have lost their goddamn minds. John Podesta clicks a phishing link, and suddenly it’s Red Dawn over here.

    1. You know who else was scared of the communist menace…

      1. Red Foreman?

    2. Did anybody tell them that Patrick Swayze is dead?

      1. They’ve exhumed Swayze’s bones, ground them into a fine powder, and used them in a spirit cooking ritual to resurrect Eugene McCarthy.

        1. A Eugene McCarthy that can dirty dance?

          1. He’s having the time of his afterlife.

            1. +1 Baby in a corner

  12. The Clintons and the Bushes destroyed as political families and the wholesale destruction of the Democratic and Republican establishments as well as the corporate media does not add up to 2016 being a bad year unless you’re a hardcore prog.

    As for the Russian supposed hacking, anyone who’s semi-informed with a triple digit IQ knows it’s bullshit.

    1. Well, the hacking is probably not bullshit, but the revealing to the public probably is.

  13. Yes Putin is a boogeyman – but not because of this ‘hacking’ (i.e. ‘sorcery’), but because he kills people on an industrial scale and now Trump wants a piece of the action.

    1. The Federal Government has always been and always will be a far greater threat to my life, liberty, and property than Vladimir Putin.

      1. Jordan, do not feed the troll.

        1. LOL – I know right??!! Look at YOUUUU!!!!

        2. I don’t understand it-the few times he’s managed to drop his schtick he been able to put out some fairly intelligent comments that would stimulate discussion if he’s after attention. I understand the off-the-wall shit got him attention at first but now it’s getting him ignored.

          1. The kind of person who trolls for attention like that is not gonna be your most well-balanced individual, mentally speaking. Don’t assume it functions like a rational being.

            1. You learned to stop throwing your junk at me, CX. That is actually a promising sign that you are clawing your way out of your own insanity. Keep up the good work!

          2. Weigel is severely mentally ill. It’s the reason why Welch fired his sorry ass, even though he actually fit in fairly well politically in the new and not at all improved Reason.

            1. Mikey, you magnificent dumbass, that’s not Weigel. Why do you think that it’s Weigel?

                1. Actually, it has already been caught on as being the same dipshit behind Alice Bowie and dajjal. The recent manic uptick in posting probably means it lost its job.

                  1. You can get fired from “guy who jacks off in the bathroom at Starbucks”? Damn Obama’s economy!

                    Point is, it’s STILL not David Weigel, and Mikey’s fontanelle STILL hasn’t closed.

                  2. I noticed that AddictionMyth referred to dajjal as “myself”? but how did AM get outed as Alice Bowie?

              1. I honestly can’t tell who’s a bigger dumbass.

        3. I finally got off my ass and added it to my reasonable block list. Yes, I stood up for the occasion.

          1. [eagle tears]

          2. [electric guitar wails through “The Star-Spangled Banner”]

          3. This thread is a sea of white on my browser.

            1. Are you sure that it’s not just residue on your screen?

              1. [insert other cum pun here]

          4. Could someone provide a link?

            1. to reasonable, that is. thx

              1. I can still see you, BP.

            2. Search for it in the Chrome extensions store.

              1. I’m not sure about what still works on different browser platforms, BP.

                1. Sweet. Thx again, SF. It’s like those little roach traps. Put it down, and the roaches disappear.

                  1. No problemo.

            3. There is also this

              Works through Tampermonkey. I run both Greasonable and Reasonable at the same time. Some of the functionality duplicates, but each has some unique features that are really useful.

    2. “Because [Putin] kills people on an industrial scale and now Trump wants a piece of the action.”

      Would you have opposed working with Stalin to defeat the Nazis?

      1. Wait – I thought just yesterday you admitted that ISIS was mostly a creation of Russia and Syria and Saudi Arabia and not our problem.

        1. Um . . . I didn’t say that, exactly.

          I said at the present time, I do not believe it is in the interests of the United States to invade Syria or Iraq to go after ISIS. At the present time, ISIS does not present a sufficient threat to justify an invasion in my opinion.

          I also said that the time to go shopping for fire insurance isn’t after your house has caught on fire, and that if ISIS ever graduated to becoming a threat to American security that was so great and so immediate that it did justify an American invasion of Syria, it would still be in our better interests to coordinate that fight with Putin and his allies–so that we never had to go into Syria at all and fight ISIS, Assad, the Iranian Revolutionary Army, and Hezbollah, too.

          This is much like what we did with Stalin against the Nazis. If Stalin wasn’t so awful that we couldn’t work with him for our purposes when it was in our interests to do so, then if it ever becomes in our best interests to work with Putin, whether he’s a nasty guy should only matter to neocon extremists.

          Are you a neocon extremist? Would you refuse to work with Stalin to defeat the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese because Stalin was such a rotten guy?

          1. No one reads your nonsense, KS. Certainly not I.

            1. No one reads your nonsense, KS. Certainly not I. I’m too stupid to understand a logical argument.

              FTFY

          2. Ken, i know that, for you, five paragraphs doesn’t even count as a response, but DON’T FEED THE TROLL.

            1. I wasn’t feeding it.

              I was embarrassing it.

              1. That is not possible. For it to be embarrassed, it would first have to have an ability to feel shame, which it does not.

              2. See below, where it responds to itself because nobody else well. Sad!

    3. Yes Putin is a boogeyman – but not because of this ‘hacking’ (i.e. ‘sorcery’), but because he kills people on an industrial scale and now Trump wants a piece of the action.

      Putin didn’t start sovereign Fight Club, he just wanted in after seeing the Americans having sooo much fun. And Barry was a disaster running sovereign Fight Club, from the first rule on. So now Vlad gets to run sovereign Fight Club, until Donald nukes that fat Nork and starts the (much cooler, much classier) sovereign Murder Club.

      1. Please don’t feed the troll.

  14. Just gotta keep it together for 18 more days my precious little frankentrumpkensteins. We can do it. 🙂

    1. Are you going to wet yourself with joy when Trump is sworn in, AddictionMyth?

  15. “If what Assange says is true, that means the source of the leak is not anonymous.

    Even if Assange knows the source, it doesn’t mean he knows from whom the leaker got the emails. Uncertainty is inescapable.

    In the run up to the Iraq War, the problem wasn’t just that the media bought into untrue narratives about Saddam Hussein’s WMD program. The bigger problem was that the media bought into the assumption that Saddam Hussein’s WMD program justified an invasion.

    As we recently saw in Obama’s embarrassment in overselling his red line threats regarding Syria, just because a vicious dictator has WMD and uses it does not mean it’s in the best interests of the United States to squander trillions of dollars and sacrifice the lives and limbs of thousands of American heroes.

    In this case, the faulty assumption is different but clear as day. What should we conclude if it turns out that the emails were supplied by Russian hackers? That we shouldn’t coordinate with the Russians when it’s in the interests of American security to do so? That we should keep holding the same election until Hillary finally wins? That Rex Tillerson shouldn’t be confirmed as Secretary of State? That Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn’t working for Hillary’s campaign and against Bernie Sanders?

    None of these things follow–even if Russian hackers had been the source of the emails. Changing the source of the emails changes nothing.

    1. Assange has hinted that Seth Rich was at least one source. He has offered a $20k reward for information on Rich’s killer.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/…..ource.html

      1. Unfortunately, Seth Rich is no longer here to corroborate or deny that.

        Even if he were alive and denied being the source, would we believe him? I’m sure there are people who could make a case for why we should be skeptical if he were alive and claimed to be a source, too.

        Again, some uncertainty is inescapable, and, more importantly, the implications of who the source was are inconsequential to the questions hand.

        Again, if Vladimir Putin himself were the sole source of the emails, what are we supposed to conclude from that?

        1. RIght.

          They have successfully deflected the discussion away from any of the contents of the emails and documents.

          The confirmation that the DNC rigged the primaries for HRC over Bernie. The multiple confirmations of collusion with the media to ensure the election of HRC. The corruption of the debate system via sympathetic media members. The collusion of the media and the DNC to influence the Republican primaries and ensure the nomination of a beatable candidate…… like Donald Trump. (how’d that one work out for ya?)

          One of the great failures of the wikileaks DNC/HRC campaign dumps is that the sheer volume of information served to obscure what are truly damning details. If William Casey had some memos leaked back in 1980 that showed that the Reagan campaign had done any one of these things, he’d have been done. Heck, if that stuff had come out after the election, he likely would have been impeached.

          But because there were 50 issues all at once, and many of them require understanding 3 or 4 things at once, sympathetic media members are able to deflect from these issues to “the real story”. Which is of course, “why is such an evil character as Trump allowed to roam the streets free? Shouldn’t Trump be shot as a traitor and Russian collaborator?”

  16. O/T, but haven’t celebrity leftists learned yet how useless, and likely counterproductive, these stupid videos are?

    “A slew of high-profile stars ? including Sally Field, former “The View” co-host Rosie Perez, “Westworld’s” Jeffrey Wright, Keegan-Michael Key and “Boardwalk Empire” actor Steve Buscemi ? are calling on Congress to “vigorously oppose” any of President-elect Donald Trump’s “racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-environmental policies.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/in-th…..p-to-trump

    1. Do they repeat (repeat) (repeat) every fifth word?

      1. Not as much as in the past, but yes, (yes) there is some repeating (repeating)

    2. No Alec Baldwin? They’re mailing it in with the B-team on this one. Step it up, F. A. G.

    3. Experience has taught me that people don’t learn from experience.

    4. Nooooo, not Buscemi! Why do seemingly all Hollywood actors just have to fuck it up for the vastly more than half of the country that disagrees with them?

      1. If only there was some sort of automatic device to help re-allign his thoughts. But until that magical day, we will just have to enjoy his body of work.

    5. IOW, anything he does. He could adopt a puppy from a shelter and they’d claim it was a “racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-environmental polic[y].” As much as I disliked him, the constant mewling whine from the left is making me grudgingly reconsider.

      1. Celebrities Denounce Trump For Subjecting Innocent Puppy To His Racist-Sexist Presence

        1. Speaking of puppies, we adopted a cute little mutt from the pound for the kids for Christmas. 8 days later, 3 of my wife’s friends have adopted pets, and two more are looking (that I know about).

          Women and facebook are a dangerous combination. Peer pressure works on them in strange and powerful ways. One of them already had a dog and there was no discussion of a second… until the video of the kids opening their present hit Facebook. Two days later she bought another dog. Another had wanted one for a while, but her husband said no… so when the flurry of “likes” for my wife’s posts of puppy picks hit the net, she went out and bought a dog and talked her parents into keeping it.

          Now they are all happily posting facebook photos and collecting their ‘likes’. And now there are “play dates” at the dog park.

          Can you imagine doing this with your guy friends? Hey! Tom got a puppy! I’m gonna get one too! And hey, Tom, can you meet me at the park for a play date with your puppy???

          (ok, in fairness you might be able to replace “puppy” with “Ducati SuperSport” and “play date at the park” with “ride up through the mountains”)

          1. puppy pics or gfto

          2. You’re doing it with your guy friends right now, dipshit.

          3. Don’t know. My brother has a beautiful turkey hunting dog he picked up a couple of years ago. After trying the wild turkey he made on Christmas, I can’t say I’m not tempted to get one and take them on a play date.

          4. Aprilia or GTFO

      2. I won’t go as far as saying I’m about to reconsider…. but the left truly makes it impossible to maintain an honest discussion and avoid defending Trump. Which is an untenable position. But every time you turn around they say something so egregious that you feel compelled to correct them…. “No, Trump never said that LGBT people should be subject to mandatory electroshock therapy….”

        I’m really enjoying (if that is the right word… and it isn’t) watching the teams spin back and forth every few days as to which side of an issue they are on.

        Suddenly the left is against free speech, against freedom of association, against government accountability, loves that their candidate gets payoffs from huge multinational corporations and foreign governments, is against representative democracy, against the legislative process, against freedom of the press…….. I mean, what is left for all the Boomers who were children of the 60’s with free love and “stickin’ it to ‘the Man'”?

        Suddenly the right loves wikileaks, is all for reconciliation with Putin (and it is ‘moderate’ guys like McCain who are stomping around for tougher action??), doesn’t mind a little sexual indiscretion,

        What the heck guys? I know you don’t really have an ideological rudder, but I thought you’d at least stick with a couple of core principles.

        1. I mean, what is left for all the Boomers who were children of the 60’s with free love and “stickin’ it to ‘the Man'”?

          Legalized marijuana, which a majority of them don’t even support.

          1. By legalized, did you mean highly regulated and taxed by the man?

            1. A distinction without a difference to everyone else but us.

              The 55+ crowd supports it at 45%. Which is only slightly higher than Republicans regardless of age (42%.)

              1. Yea but the highly regulated weed I got in Denver was super good stuff. I just walked down the street passing by a couple of cops on the way and bought weed without any worries at all. That is worth being taxed.

        2. Progs have no principles. Only principals.

        3. Progs have no principles. Only principals.

        4. The political parties are institutions. They’re only interested in their own fortunes. Having principles interferes with that.

        5. I actually would not be surprised to see some party re-alignment during the Trump Administration. Are there even enough Democrats left for the Republicans to fight with?

          Paul Ryan and his type will end up in major battles over immigration and size of government. At that point, why not fill the void on the left abandoned by Democrats who went insane?

        6. “”I’m really enjoying (if that is the right word… and it isn’t) watching the teams spin back and forth every few days as to which side of an issue they are on.””

          All that grief they were giving Trump on the “wait and see” answer regarding the election results.

          All those it’s impossible to hack an election facebook memes they were posting (after the Shultz resigned from the DNC).

          Yet they complain about flip flopping.

    6. I’m sure all those GOP congressmen from NYC and LA will be right on that.

    7. Congress to “vigorously oppose” any of President-elect Donald Trump’s “racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-environmental policies.”

      I keep noticing lefties perceive Trump to be anti-Muslim (OK, sure) and way too pro-Israel with all the settlement support, Zionist-friendly tweeting, and promises to move embassy to Jerusalem.

      But how does the anti-Semitism piece fit that reality?

      1. He’s neo-Hitler. You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter that he has close family members who are Jews. It doesn’t matter that he’s never said an anti-Jewish thing in his life. It doesn’t matter that he’s awfully pro-Israel for an alleged anti-Semite. Because he’s neo-Hitler, he must hate the Jews.

        1. I’m just waiting for some “progressive” to spout the “Trump is Hitler” canard around me so that I can reply that the platforms of both the original Nazi Party and many neo-Nazi parties include demands for:
          – “Free” healthcare
          – “Free” education
          – A national old-age pension system
          – Extensive regulation of the economy with particular attention to the financial sector
          – Restrictions or sanctions on “unearned” income such as interest and corporate dividends

      2. But how does the anti-Semitism piece fit that reality?

        Putting aside that these accusations are almost always from people who love Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Keith Ellison… the argument distills to this: “He hired Steve Bannon. During a contentious divorce and custody battle, Bannon’s ex-wife made an uncorroborated accusation that Bannon once said something that may have been ambiguously anti-semitic.”

        It’s all about the derangement. I’m sympathetic to BakedPenguin’s view: I revile the guy, but the unhinged mewling from the left is pushing me toward a grudging acceptance.

        1. I’m rapidly heading in the anti-anti-Trump direction myself. Didn’t vote for the man and I saw him as a regrettable choice that was still miles better than Clinton, but the TDS camp is so mendacious and scummy that I find myself reflexively defending the man, which, let me tell you, is not a comfortable feeling.

          1. Not to worry. The other shoe will drop.

            1. Oh, believe me, I’m already getting the heebie-jeebies listening to all the mercantilist rhetoric coming from the Trump camp.

              1. The thing that scares me the most about Trump is his anti-trade rhetoric. If he were to follow through with his statements about imposing tariffs on imports, a lot of basic goods would get very expensive.

                The best case scenario would be if he neglects to impose any tariffs but lowers the corporate tax rate and at the very least vetoes any massive new regulations on the economy.

      3. Guilt by association with those people

      4. Well he’s obviously trying to build the third temple, which would cause the four horsemen to show up. Which would destroy Israel.

        It’s right next to that bit where Jesus quotes Marx. Don’t you even Bible bro?

        1. Who is your favorite Horseman?

          Death rides a pale, swift, horse.

          1. Being covered in fish is of course the best horseman.

          2. Bojack, duh.

        2. Which Marx – Groucho or Chico?

      5. I get the impression that that is just a thing that people do now, this torrent of accusations of being anti-[insert taxonomic group]. I call it “the litany of isms”. I don’t know why people thinks it helps their argument.

        I remember in particular a piece (I think it was some Salon derp?) that said something along the lines of “you can’t be socially liberal but fiscally conservative because free markets are [insert litany]”. I think they hit religion, race, disability, and every permutation of sex and sexuality without bothering to explain anything, because they don’t actually mean anything.

        1. It’s an attempt to “disqualify” their opponent so that they win by default. They know they can’t win by making logically sound arguments, so they have to use a different strategy.

          It’s a “get out of logic free” card.

    8. So, let’s see… they’ve appealed to all of the following to oppose Donald Trump at all costs:

      – The voters (failed)
      – The ballot counters (failed)
      – The electors (failed)

      I’m not expecting their appeal to Congress to go much better. Maybe they can appeal to SCOTUS next?

      1. Appealing to Odin would be just as good.

    9. Wait a minute. I’m confused. Trump has “anti-Semitic” policies? Didn’t I just read about Trump’s “unprecedented” interference in American foreign policy by calling for the vetoing of the recent UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements, thereby “forcing” Obama to abstain? Was that an example of Trump’s “anti-Semitic” policies?

    10. Doesn’t matter. They can’t help themselves. The narcissism is too strong to overcome.

    11. “A slew of high-profile stars ? including Sally Field, former “The View” co-host Rosie Perez, “Westworld’s” Jeffrey Wright, Keegan-Michael Key and “Boardwalk Empire” actor Steve Buscemi ? are calling on Congress to “vigorously oppose” any of President-elect Donald Trump’s “racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-environmental policies.”

      Are you at ‘work’ now?

  17. by Monday, The Washington Post had reported that it didn’t even appear that Russian hackers were even involved.

    Funny, never saw that part. anyone have a link?

    I did see the initial story and was reading it in real-time as they downgraded their headline from “Russians Hacked Energy Grid”, to “Something Happened, and It Was Still A Big Deal, But Just Not What We Said Before”

    it seems to me that if they couldn’t even find a single admin official to validate their bullshit, they should have never run it in the first place. basically – they’ve done worse on the most-shallow of anonymous claims… yet they couldn’t even meet that very-low bar here.

    1. Here ya go:
      “WaPo Corrects Story About Russian Hackers Infiltrating American Power Grid”
      http://www.mediaite.com/online…..ower-grid/

      1. Thanks, but that’s the correction of the original story i mentioned (on fri), not the Monday part, where they finally confessed ‘no russian connection either’.

        What they backed off on Friday was the claim that the “Electrical Grid” had been penetrated…. when it was a disconnected laptop with no relationship to the “grid”…which had suggested that the attack was somehow directly on ‘infrastructure’ rather than a banal PC infection.

          1. The final retraction will be it wasn’t hacking Vermont power grid, but Yankee Candle Co.; which is in Vermont and provided products for heat and light – an innocent mistake!

            1. The final retraction will be it wasn’t hacking Vermont power grid, but Yankee Candle Co.; which is in Vermont and provided products for heat and light – an innocent mistake!

              Reminds me of a Radio Yerevan joke?

              Radio Yerevan was asked, “Is it correct that Grigori Grigorievich Grigoriev won a luxury car at the All-Union Championship in Moscow?”

              Radio Yerevan answers, “In principle, yes. But first of all it was not Grigori Grigorievich Grigoriev, but Vassili Vassilievich Vassiliev; second, it was not at the All-Union Championship in Moscow, but at a Collective Farm Sports Festival in Smolensk; third, it was not a car, but a bicycle; and fourth he didn’t win it, but rather it was stolen from him.”

        1. I’ve been on a bit of a media blackout, so…

          An infected but disconnected laptop was called in infrastructure attack?

          Holy shit! It’s like panicky idiot reporting and partisan hackery got together and had a retarded baby.

          1. An infected but disconnected laptop was called in infrastructure attack?

            Yes. Literally front-page news.

          2. An infected but disconnected laptop was called in infrastructure attack?

            yes.

            The headline said, “Russians Hack into US Energy Grid”

            the correction =

            Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid

            the coverage you linked to pointed out that the WaPo didn’t even bother contacting the company themselves before running the story. They were made to look like idiots because the company itself put out a press-release going, “Uh, No – that didn’t actually happen”.

            My question was about Scotts saying that they had backed off claiming any “russian” connection at all. As of now, the ‘Corrected’ story still has the headline =

            Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say

            I don’t see any mention @ the WaPo of a second-correction

            1. WaPo has long-since past into a parody of itself, but that is straight up nuts.

              1. I wonder if Vlad collects his yes-men troupe every morning in that ostentatious Kremlin meeting room to laugh at the American newspapers.

        2. “Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation”
          Follow the link to the WaPo story in the long pull quote.
          http://ijr.com/wildfire/2017/0…..comes-out/

          1. Geez Sevo, what’s with enacting Gilmore’s labor?

            1. Dammit, I missed the first one; not about to give up after that.

          2. Thanks

            Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to investigation

            As noted above, they’re still running the older story headline claiming a russian connection, sans further correction.

            they call it an ‘update’ to the older story, but there’s nothing leading you from the first to the second, and my google still just pulled up the old one.

            1. just as an example of how much more widely read the “fake” story (with the still-incorrect headline) was….

              …it has 12,000 comments, the ‘correction’ has less than 2. yes, its only been up for 24 hours, but still. They waited until the lie was fully sold before issuing the perfunctory correction.

              1. And yet, somehow, that’s not what anyone means when they yammer about “fake news.”

  18. I’m running on a platform to abolish safe spaces for trolls. Can I count on your vote?

    1. Wu is already running in MA.

  19. My precious little frankentrumpkensteins – have your forsaken your CREATOR?

    1. If you promise you’ll stay there, and never darken our door again, l’ll sign the petition.

  20. What we need is a new public hysteria about some long-ignored problem that has suddenly become a serious crisis. Thoughts?

  21. “What should America do to countries that engage in cyberespionage?”

    We should business negotiate awesome economic deals that will ruin their economy, or bomb the poor off of them.

    “What should America do to prevent cyberespionage?

    Easy: unplug everything.

    Trump knows hacking, Snackboard – get it together.

    1. “Easy: unplug everything.”

      Maybe Trump will bring back the hot secretaries taking memos and dictation. And then after work he can grab a little…

      1. He is going to bring back goosing! Finally.

    2. You mean like BSG?

  22. The initial reporting acknowledged that any “hacking” that took place happened because whoever was operating the computer in question clicked on a link from a phishing email that installed malware on the computer. ….

    Something else no one in the media bothered to highlight = the phishing campaign that ensnared podesta included 1,000+ recipients, only a fraction of whom were government/political-party connected.

    To show how mendacious the media has been about trying to bury that detail, see how they spin =

    The attack against U.S. democracy began in the summer of 2015 with a simple trick: Hackers working for Russia’s civilian intelligence service sent e-mails with hidden malware to more than 1,000 people working for the American government and political groups.

    the actual FBI report =

    In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link
    to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Government victims

    hm. “including”? It takes a quick google to learn that there was plenty of public information about APT29 available in 2015… and what you learn is that these same folks have been doing this shit for YEARS.

    1. re: that second link

      Note the level of detail available about the Summer 2015 APT29 phishing attack =

      What is most significant about the July 2015 CloudDuke [APT29] campaign is the timeline. The campaign appeared to consist of two distinct waves of spear-phishing, one during the first days of July and the other starting from the 20th of the month. Details of the first wave, including a thorough technical analysis of CloudDuke, was published by Palo Alto Networks on 14 the July [16]. This was followed by additional details from Kaspersky in a blog post published on 16th July

      basically, what you got from the FBI / DHS? was a fraction of the detail already publicly available about all this Russian hacking activity.

      and the analysis coming from these security firms is far more interesting (and sourced).

      Yet point me to a single newspaper reporter who has bothered to even acknowledge that all this stuff is even out there.

      Doing so would ruin the narrative in multiple ways =

      1, it would expose the government sources as being utterly useless, and in fact sharing nothing that wasn’t already known – and 2, it would reveal that all this behavior had been ongoing *constantly* for the last 7+ years… and wasn’t in any way new/unique to the ‘election’ context.

      The goal isn’t to report anything here… its to pump a narrative. full stop.

  23. How many years has it been since Assange has seen the sun?

    1. That depends. Does he walk bow-legged?

    2. He’s British, so… 1977?

      1. Australian actually.

        1. Oh. Well, Australia is only about 80 miles from the sun. Still, Assange has been in northern Europe for a long time now.

          1. Australians make the best hackers, because they can hide thumb drives in their pouch.

            1. Also, they tend to be difficult to capture, because many of them are venomous.

    3. He looks tanner than me. Some of us are of northern stock and eschew sunburns, you know.

    4. He’s always been sort of albino-ish.

  24. Don’t forget, it’s me who put you where you are now
    And I can put you back down too

  25. Chelsea Manning’s leaks

    Phrasing…

    1. Gender reassignment surgery in a prison hospital is an iffy prospect at best.

      1. Yeah, no shit. She might end up with two dicks.

        All joking aside, I really feel bad for her. She was tortured for years.

    2. Isn’t she that smart-ass lady on Netflix that hates Angelina Jolie?

    3. I would be a good name for an all girl punk rock band, “Chelsea Manning and the Leaks”.

  26. My precious frankentrumpkensteins – can you keep a secret?

  27. BTW, Trump has decided GM needs more expensive cars:

    “Trump blasts GM for Mexican-made Chevy Cruze”
    […]
    “Trump slammed GM on Twitter for “sending Mexican-made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border.”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../96100270/

  28. Looks vs smarts: who will win?

      1. Ah yes, good point. There signs of intelligent life down here after all. I will not yet give up on thee.

        1. Stop trying to steal Eddie’s shtick.

          1. I paid good money for that.

  29. The Post relied on anonymous government sources for its reporting, and when dealing with cybersecurity and tech issues there are so many opportunities for information to go awry. Relying on anonymous information from intel officials deliberately trying to shield themselves from taking responsibility for such leaks is a bad idea.

    With hacking, either they bust the guy who did and and find the evidence on his computer, or they are full of shit when they say they know who did it. These “opinions” about who they think did it are completely worthless.

    1. To give some perspective, in medicine, another field where experts give opinions based on available data plus lots of smug expertness, the accuracy of a diagnosis for easy disease cases is about 50 percent. And for hard cases it’s single digits.

  30. Yeah, I’m gonna just wait until Trump spills the beans on this whole hacking thing before I weigh in on it and look foolish. Trump has promised to spill the beans on the deep dark mysterious things he knows that nobody else knows, and he has humbly admitted that he’s probably the world’s foremost 1337 h4x0r so If Trump don’t know it, it ain’t worth knowing when it comes to hacking.

  31. the left has been pushing for war against Russia, during the elections the media and Hillary were making wild claims about Russia and now that she lost they’ve moved onto this other Russian meme why are they looking for war.

  32. In these days of “fake news” it is almost amusing to see how we’re supposed to interpret “something a Russian person did” or even “something done by a person located in, or whose ip address is in, Russia” as “something done by Russia.”
    The absurdity of conflating persons with states, for the convenience of the narrative, is pretty glaring.
    It’s an issue I in tend to be pointing out to a number of ‘very concerned people’.

    1. it is almost amusing to see how we’re supposed to interpret “something a Russian person did” or even “something done by a person located in, or whose ip address is in, Russia” as “something done by Russia.”

      the evidence that the APT29 folks are connected to the russian government is far better detailed in private-sector security firm’s analysis than it is in the FBI / DHS claims

      they cover 7+ years of activity by the specific group (identifiable mostly by their toolkits), and you get the picture that they are pretty exclusively interested in things that the Russian Govt would itself be interested in; there’s little/no evidence of any commercial motive despite having plenty of opportunity.

      1. e.g.

        This naturally leads to the question of state-sponsorship. Based on our establishment of the group’s primary mission, we believe the main benefactor (or benefactors) of their work is a government. But are the Dukes a team or a department inside a government agency? An external contractor? A criminal gang selling to the highest bidder? A group of tech-savvy patriots? We don’t know

        This leaves us with the final question: which country? We are unable to conclusively prove responsibility of
        any specific country for the Dukes. All of the available evidence however does in our opinion suggest that the
        group operates on behalf of the Russian Federation. Further, we are currently unaware of any evidence
        disproving this theory. Kaspersky Labs has previously noted the presence of Russian-language artefacts in some of the Duke malware samples [9]… Additionally, Kaspersky noted that based on the compilation timestamps, the authors of the Duke malware appear to primarily work from Monday to Friday between the times of 6am and 4pm UTC+0 [11]. This corresponds to working hours between 9am and 7pm in the UTC+3 time zone, also known as Moscow Standard Time…

        Finally, the known targets of the Dukes – Eastern European foreign ministries, western think tanks and governmental organizations, even Russian-speaking drug dealers – conform to publicly-known Russian foreign policy and security policy interests….

        1. Ironic that the most recent article talks about a supposed infrastructure attack, and yet the most effective of such an attack to date was Stuxnet, which Probably was a US attack on Iran. Duqu and other exploits were probably derived in part from Stuxnet code and techniques. They are quite common now – the JAR mentioned more than one you could find on GitHub. And as a result, the current administration is probably partially responsible for the current proliferation of these tools, which were then Probably used by possible Russian related hackers.

          1. , the current administration is probably partially responsible for the current proliferation of these tools,

            Exactly.

            The narrative that the media is pumping fails to grasp the underlying basics of how international-espionage type activity *works*

            Everyone hews to a norm of behavior which is established by the US; basically, whatever WE do? everyone else feels they now have free rein to also do. How could the US call anything an act of war if they are behaviors we ourselves normalized?

            The media is complicit in creating false understandings about what’s actually going on, and its dangerous stuff, creating a public that believes the russians are actively & uniquely intent on harming us in ways we ourselves are innocent of. That sort of rabble rousing encourages a vicious cycle of escalation and recrimination, which incentivizes politicians to become increasingly aggressive in order to mollify the public.

            the media should be helping put everything in context, and downplaying the administration’s hype. instead they amplify the worst perceptions, and help obfuscate the context.

      2. Watch out, some of the private sector analysts are also guilty of selecting data to match their preconceptions.

        “APT28 has targeted a variety of organizations that fall outside of the three themes we highlighted above. However, we are not profiling all of APT28’s targets with the same detail because they are not particularly indicative of a specific sponsor’s interests.” (emphasis added)

        That is the very definition of confirmation bias. Had FireEye published a detailed picture of APT28’s activities including all of their known targets, other theories regarding this group could have emerged; for example, that the malware developers and the operators of that malware were not the same or even necessarily affiliated.

  33. Saddam Hussein was hoarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    “We” glossed over this at the time, but the terms of the ceasefire of the first war meant it was, in terms of “international law” justifiction, irrelevant whether he was “hoarding” weapons “of mass destruction” or not.

    1) Saddam was obligated to destroy prohibited weapons WHICH HE DECLARED THAT HE HAD AT THE END OF THE FIRST WAR AND WHICH WERE ENUMERATED (some of which sorta qualify as WMD if you squint real hard) with UNMOVIC/UNSCOM present

    2) He fucked around in bad faith for years, eventually kicking out UNMOVIC/UNSCOM

    3) He then claimed that he unilaterally destroyed the balance of the prohibited weapons WHICH, AGAIN, HE DECLARED THAT HE HAD AT THE END OF THE FIRST WAR AND WHICH WERE ENUMERATED

    4) The US said “we don’t believe you, and even if we did, you signed a treaty saying you’d destroy them WITH UNSCOM/UNMOVIC present, you are therefore violating the terms of our ceasefire and we resume full scale hostilities”

    1. While it is important to make it clear what the justification for the first ~7 weeks of the Iraq campaign was, the remaining ~446 weeks are the more concerning matter.

      1. FTR, I personally think invading was a stupid idea. But I think it was justifiable under both UNSC 687/1441 and the traditional “rules of war.” When you lose a war, you’d better comply with the terms of your ceasefire or there may be a return to hostilities.

        1. I agree, and I die on this hill all the time. Forget the intelligence, which, incidentally, was regarded as reliable by numerous intelligence agencies. Hussein himself claimed to have violated the UN agreement and refused to allow inspectors back into the country to verify that the weapons had been destroyed. Everything he was doing would lead one to believe that he had weapons and was buying time to conceal them. On that basis, the UN agreement justified some sort of intervention. It doesn’t necessarily follow that we should have occupied Iraq and tried to create some sort of modern democratic nation there.

  34. If CNN can use Fallout 4 screen to depict Russian hacking, can we use Doom in game footage to replace body camera footage of warrant services?

    Or Tom Clancy’s The Division

    how about Papers Please?

  35. OT: I wash my hands before I pee.

    1. Don’t want your dick catching the sniffles.

  36. Even if the Russians are behind the leaks, so what? They did the country a public service. The emails were legitimate and if they were embarrassing to Democrats, well too bad. They should have been more careful. Beyond that, the emails were mostly an embarrassment to the media in that they showed what hacks they all are and how they coordinated with the Hillary campaign. Other than the fact that they screwed Bernie in the primaries, which everyone knew anyway, what was in those emails that changed any votes? Nothing that I can see. So even if the Russians were behind this, it didn’t change the result of the election.

    1. Actions which cause detriment to the presidential aspirations of proven traitors are always noble. Hillary’s just reward is an electric chair.

      1. showing what craven stupid morons our political class is is not “hacking the election”. It is doing a public service. Who knew Putin loved America so much?

        1. Or maybe had enough of that harpy to last a lifetime.

    2. Indeed. The Democrats seem to be blind to the fact that Hillary has been deeply hated by many outside of leftist urban enclaves since the 1990s. The only way she could get into the Senate was to carpetbag into a liberal state. She had her ass handed to her in 2008 by an inexperienced “community organizer” whose race was the only thing to recommend him. They just can’t accept that she’s a grade AAA fuckup.

    3. Yet ~56% of Dems think that the Russians hacked the election. As in they they think the Russians drove up in an old Skoda and pulled out boxes of ballots for Trump from the trunk.

      While the hacking was embarrassing for the DNC and the MSM, there weren’t really any smoking guns about her Highness, first of her name.

      1. While the hacking was embarrassing for the DNC and the MSM, there weren’t really any smoking guns about her Highness, first of her name.

        And the Democrats spent the entire fall saying there was nothing in the emails and they didn’t matter. Then after Hillary lost suddenly they were the most important thing ever. Really? I wish someone would ask them exactly how the Russians hacked the election. What did they hack and what did they leak? Gee you mean there was a smoking gun about Hillary after all?

        The whole thing is fucking pathetic. But, they have totally convinced themselves of it.

        1. And the Democrats spent the entire fall saying there was nothing in the emails and they didn’t matter.

          I think you’re confusing two different scandals*. The Democrats insisted there was nothing in the emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server which she used for official business while Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. They pointedly did not comment on the leaked emails from the DNC’s own servers from 2015 to 2016.

          * = Easy to do, since it has been a strategy of the Clintons for decades now to blend all the scandals together so nobody can distinguish them any more and it all becomes “old news”

          1. But there wasn’t anything in the DNC emails other than how badly they fucked Bernie, what an idiot Jon Podesta was, and how various journalists were total hacks in explicit coordination with Hillary. How did that flip any votes?

          2. “”* = Easy to do, since it has been a strategy of the Clintons for decades now to blend all the scandals together so nobody can distinguish them any more and it all becomes “old news”

            It’s a vast right wing conspiracy

    4. When you say that in response to someone claiming that the Russians “hacked” the election and demanding strong reprisals they look at you as if you’ve just wrapped an orphan in an American flag and set him/her on fire. The Dems are catching full-on patriotism all of a sudden, and the parallels between the run-up to the Iraq War and this stuff are stunning.

  37. OT – http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017…..-says.html

    Soldier in Army jacket attacked after Philadelphia parade, family says

    A soldier’s mom is speaking out after what she called a brutal attack on her son after Philadelphia’s annual Mummers parade. He is now in the hospital with a long recovery ahead of him.

    Lori Freni was supposed to see her 19-year-old Army serviceman son Austin head back to base after the holidays.

    “Austin’s in rough shape. He’s pretty banged up,” she told FOX 29.

    But now, he lays in Jefferson University Hospital with severe facial injuries after being jumped while leaving the Mummers Parade festivities on Sunday.

    “Group of 10-15 guys walked by me (making) derogatory comments towards Austin’s Army jacket,” she explained.

    Then she says one of the young men struck Austin before others piled on.

    “Me and his girlfriend tried pulling them off and they hit us. We got hit in the face. She got thrown in the street,” his mom explained. “He’s got to get plates put in his jaw and his mouth will be wired shut for the next eight weeks.”

    1. Its Phily. They attacked him because they are animals and that is what they do. I bet his jacket was just an excuse. If he hadn’t been wearing it, they would have found another one. And it is too bad he wasn’t armed. Until people start shooting when attacked by these mobs, it is only going to get worse.

    2. An apt demonstration of why the possession of a firearm on one’s person should be ingrained in every free man and woman as routine.

      1. You are correct. In that situation only being armed is going to save you. No one is bad enough to take on a mob of people. And most people looking to kick someone’s ass are not looking for a murder wrap and won’t have a gun. Once you pull yours, they are done.

    3. An apt demonstration of why you should never go to Philadelphia ever, Jesus Christ, people.

    4. Maryland mag capacity is limited to 10 because “why would anyone need more than 10 rounds to defend themselves?” I’m sure New Yorkers could chime in even more meaningfully here.

  38. “I bet his jacket was just an excuse.”

    Unless it was a jacket of the Russian army. Then the attack is totally justified.

  39. The media aren’t being swept up in someone else’s agenda here, of course, they’re manufacturing this hysteria and using intelligence agencies as an excuse. In large part, this is because Trump ran against the media moreso than against Hillary, and this is their post-election counterattack. I don’t see Trump’s relationship with media improving anytime soon, on either side.

    1. Which, if you are willing to spend the time parsing the bullshit, might be fine; a media critical of someone holding office! What a change, I hope.

      1. If they weren’t more full of shit than actual politicians, it would be a good thing. If, if, if.

  40. Great article – thanks! Awesome analogy.

    Regarding WMD, one of the things the war pigs had going for them was religion. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament based neocons ( http://deism.com/neoconsbible.htm ) were able to easily influence George “Jesus is my favorite philosopher” Bush to get the Iraq War started.

  41. OT:

    A hypothesis on why Fox News is widely believed (among “progressives”) to be the only news outlet with any bias whatsoever: Fox News is obviously slanted towards right-wing Republican viewpoints. Other news agencies are not in fact unbiased, but merely the left-wing version of Fox News.

    When Fox News is called out for reporting a demonstrable falsehood, all the other media organizations – being leftist – will run stories all at once decrying the horrible right-wing bias of Fox News’ reporting. However, when one (or all) of the leftist media outlets reports something grossly inaccurate, they don’t call each other out in the same way.

    1. #bothsidesism means never having to say FOX News lies a lot more than anyone else

  42. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    =============== http://www.homejobs7.com

  43. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  44. “Because WMDs were a hoax, Russian hacking is a hoax too”

    (Fact) Free minds and free markets

  45. As for the “hacking” of the Democrats that prompted sanctions from the White House, Julian Assange at Wikileaks is insisting that the Russian government is not the source of the information. Assange will be interviewed live tonight by Sean Hannity at Fox News. If what Assange says is true, that means the source of the leak is not anonymous

    1. Julian Assange denies that his source is the Russians
    2. The FBI and the CIA conclude that Russians hacked the DNC
    3. If Julian Assange is right, then his source is not the Russians.
    4. The FBI and the CIA said nothing about Julian Assange
    5. Therefore Julian Assange is right.

    Science, bitches!

    Free minds and free markets

  46. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homejobs7.com

  47. RT (Russia Today TV news) have shown a cut showing the US Ambassador to London saying that he met the whistle-blower on a trip to America and he’s an American…But he hasn’t received any calls from the MSM querying him about it. Assange also says it’s not Russia.

    Personally, I believe Assange over Clapper – a man who lied UNDER OATH to Congress. Since Assange is backed up by the American Ambassador, the whole thing is simply more fake news perpetrated by the MSM, the Democratic politicians, and all the many RINOs who are upset at losing control of the White House.

    But why are we focussing on the source rather than the content – Clinton’s incompetence and dishonesty as Secretary of State

  48. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out…..

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.