Free Republic

You either misunderstood what I meant - and what the guy I copied and pasted meant - or you are being deliberately obtuse.

There is no way these 13 Russians - or any other number of Russians - or anyone else - had any “influence” on this election. At all. None.

Hillary was a shoe-in until they announced the results. If these guys had been effective at all it would have shown up in the polls long before election day. People didn’t suddenly wake up and vote Trup - or anyone else - based on a bunch of bullshit posted on social media.

Hillary lost because she came off like a drunk old bat of a neighbor who is always stirring shit up. Not to mention her past...

And even if some Russians (or Brits or Turks or Frogs or whoever) bought the ads and placed fake stories, it is neither serious nor repugnant nor “hacking” nor any of the other things they are calling it. It’s a joke is what it is. The US government does much worse than this trying to influence elections everywhere. It seems pretty saucy for us to get our panties all in a bunch because a few Russians - even if Putin paid them himself - put up a few ads and created some Facebook events.

As for all that other crap - we reap what we’ve sown. If we would stop believing we have the right to go into other people’s countries and tell them how to live we would be a lot better off.

Bring our military home. Offer to trade with whomever we deem we like. Do so fairly. And tell everyone, everywhere that if someone attacks us, we turn their country into a parking lot.

Problem solved.

Please...

These guys had some computers and a few thousand dollars.

If that’s all it takes to “sow dissent” in the US, then this party is over and the last person out needs to turn off the lights.

Come on...even at our dumbest we are smarter than to fall for this.

I just saw this on Zerohedge:

So let me get this straight...

Mueller, a bunch of politicans, and a large segment of the media - including many on Fox News - would have us believe that on election day...when Hillary was polling so high they were talking “landslide”...a large enough number of people walked into a voting booth, remembered all these “malicious” stories on social media, and decided at THAT moment to change their vote for Trump or a throw away candidate - thus costing Hillary the election...

And it was and is repugnant - according to them...

These stories had no effect until Hillary LOST.

Once she lost, it had to be because a significant portion of the population was so stupid and brain dead as to enable 13 Russians with computers and fifty thousand dollars to poison their brains with a tiny little “rosebud” thought bomb set from social media and timed to explode as soon as they saw a f***ing voting booth.

That thought goes double for all the news weasels - including the idiots on Fox News who are pushing this meme about the 2018 elections as hard as everyone else.

Get f***ing real.

A very short article that fails to cover all aspects of the extremely complicated situation at the time - which stretched out around ten years or so in total.

There are also some strange allegations in the article such as the one about the banners that combined the swastika with the Coca-Cola logo.

Search for yourself. The closest thing I could find was a “Coca-Cola Swastika” key fob that was released in 1925 when at the time, the swastika design was known for its original “good luck” meaning and not the one to which the Nazis converted it.

Funny note: Pepsi Cola also had a key fob with the swastika employed as part of the design and the Boy Scouts of America also had a “good luck” swastika coin.

Anyway, if you search you can find plenty of sites (and books) out there that *swear* the banners exist, but like UFOs no one seems to actually have one. And unlike UFOs - which many say *don’t* exist - there are at least pictures of what *looks* like a strange flying object... If you search for pics of Nazi/Coca-Cola banners on Google, you find two identical pics that purport to show the banners, but they don’t show them in use - just a pic that looks worse than some of the fake UFO ones.

One would have to believe that were there actually any advertising or promotional materials that combined the Coca-Cola logo in any way with the Nazi swastika or any sort of Nazi imagery, one of their competitors would have found it - and published it by now.

So I have to conclude that if there is that big of a hole in this article, then the rest of the assertions become suspect as well.

The reverse is also true.

And apparently if you’re looking for facts from any facet of government in this case - including local/state/federal - you should look elsewhere.

Because if the truth does happen to dribble out at some point, it will be indistinguishable from the rest of the turds in the sewer.

Have you any idea how many things have been successfully covered up by not only our government, but governments of various countries throughout history?

If you think it isn’t possible to cover something up due to the numbers of people such an effort would require, then you haven’t been paying attention...

What I really want to do right now is go back and find all my comments and ping those who argued so vehemently with me and claimed I was either stupid, a conspiracy wingnut, or a Russian Troll for even questioning the official *stories* that kept (and now keep) changing and changing.

Perhaps at some point we will know the truth.

My guess is that he was an arms dealer (no one makes millions off video poker) who set up a buy with some unknown people who were up to no good. Allegedly a Saudi prince was staying in the four seasons, just upstairs. Instead of cash, Paddock got a bullet for his troubles and for some reason the perps opened fire on the crowd. Perhaps that was their plan all along. A diversion for the real action. Who knows?

What I do know is that the stories put out in the days following the shooting were unadulterated bullshit.

And they wonder why we stop believing *anything* they say...

Bullshit.

In Iraq the enemy could have been just about anyone - and at times it was.

They didn’t give us the courtesy of wearing uniforms or anything and they weren’t limited to “men of fighting age”.

At any given time, the enemy was “someone other than us.”

And somehow we didn’t manage to cap off innocent people as often as cops seem to here in the states.

True.

The rules in Iraq were relaxed somewhat as the threats didn’t wear uniforms so one could never be 100% sure someone wasn’t a threat.

There was a lot more leeway given to “fear” defenses if shots were fired.

However, surprisingly enough, there were fewer cases of our military being wrong than there seem to be with the cops being wrong.

If a cop doesn’t have the ability to control his fear long enough to assess a situation and guarantee that there is in fact a genuine *threat* to his life - or the lives of those around him before he opens fire on someone, then he doesn’t need to be a cop.

In before me ;)

I’ve posted the same thing many times.

If we give police officers ROE that allows them to shoot first, we’ve given them combat ROE.

If they have combat ROE, that means there has to be an enemy.

If there has to be an enemy then who fits the bill?

Everyone who isn’t a cop.

For someone who uses one of the bandwidth-intensive services... Yes - they will likely pay more for *their* subscriptions to use that service.

But providers with less-intensive applications and those who don’t have subscriptions will no longer have to pay a portion of it for them.

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu...etc And other multimedia content providers - *should* pay more for access. Their apps are bandwidth hogs and require tier 1, 2, and 3 transit providers to constantly upgrade their hardware to keep up with the demand for their services.

Plus - they would greatly benefit from “Class of Service” markings honored across networks to ensure the best possible queuing for consistent delivery of their content. A service for which they *should* pay more.

And making them pay more will allow less bandwidth-intensive applications - Like FreeRepublic, which transmits mostly text-based HTML and can tolerate “bursty” network access to pay *less* for their bandwidth.

Why would you make both content providers pay the same fees when they don’t need the same services?

The only people that model benefits are the content providers. With that in place, they can spread the cost of their bandwidth across the whole internet and not just their own customers...

Yep.

Lesson learned - trust me.

First hand report.

I was in KC yesterday leaving at 1230. Flight was cancelled at 6 PM and I was put on a flight to MSP where I was going to catch a midnight flight out of there to ATL.

Before leaving I asked about my checked bag - with medication in it. Was told it would automatically reroute. While waiting, I used the “track baggage” part of the Delta app and discovered that my bag was at MSP baggage claim. So I retrieved it, took it to ticketing, and checked it to Atlanta, then went back through security and boarded my new flight.

I arrived at MSP at 9 PM and found that my other flight had been cancelled and I was to go to another gate at 6 AM.

Slept on the floor at MSP because I was offered no other option, and at 5 AM I went to the gate and got a boarding pass that said my new flight was at 1 PM. I asked about my bag and they said it would be re-routed to the new flight.

So I sat down to wait - but I checked the app again to make sure. It said my bag was in storage at MSP. So I asked the agent and she called down and they said they would get it and bring it. I said - nah, I’ll go get it myself.

Went down there and found that the baggage services was closed. So who was she talking to? Waited until it opened around 6 and found my back in a locked storage room. This time, I took my meds out of it just in case it got “lost” again...

Then I took it to ticketing to check it and was told that the flight wasn’t leaving at 1, but at 630 AM. It seems that the boarding pass they gave me was for the previously delayed flight. They told me to run to security with it and said I could check it at the gate because I had to get there or I would miss the flight.

Arrived at TSA and was informed that my boarding pass was invalid. It was dated for the day before - because it was a delayed flight... They wouldn’t let me through because the boarding pass was expired - so I went *back* to ticketing to figure out what to do.

Once there, they were lost. They didn’t understand why I was given a boarding pass for the previous day and didn’t know what to do with me because in their eyes, it was my fault that I missed my flight. Apparently, I should not have gone back for my bag but should have just let it twist in the wind and hope it eventually got to Atlanta.

So - I’m sitting here in MSP right now on standby for a flight to Atlanta. I probably won’t leave until this afternoon even though I have been told twice that I was confirmed on a flight...

A: How can an airport as big as ATL not have adequate backup power systems - or any sort of contingency plan for a situation like this?

B: How can a company as big as Delta not have contingency plans for what they’re going to do if they lose ATL for an extended period?

C: Why would they issue boarding passes for the *previous* day knowing that as far as the TSA is concerned, it’s not a valid pass and if you go outside for *any* reason, you will not be allowed back through with that boarding pass?

D: If they’re going to issue a boarding pass for the previous day - shouldn’t they *tell* the customer that they did that and warn them not to go outside the security cordon?

It’s scary how little contingency planning there is in companies and airports as big as these. What are the rest of them like?

Posted this on another thread with the same story - think it bears repeating every time I read about this...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I was in the sandbox in the eighties during the “Tanker Wars”

Our Rules of Engagement during that deployment was a defensive posture. This meant that we could only defend ourselves against actual aggression - we could only fire if someone shot at us or we had a *verified* threat. In other words, we were required to assess and guarantee the threat before opening fire.

Later, during Desert Storm and the endless garbage that followed, the ROE was a combat posture: Shoot at the enemy, or anyone who seems to threaten you. The latter because lots of enemy fighters chose to wear civilian clothes. Or were women. Or kids. You were expected to exercise judgment, but if you truly felt that you were in danger, you were cleared to shoot.

What the police and their apologists want is combat posture ROE. And if that’s their ROE, then who is the enemy?

Us. Everyone who isn’t a cop. It has to be - there isn’t anyone else...

And we could be anyone - because we don’t wear uniforms. We could be a man, a woman, a child...

Even scarier is that this is pretty much what the courts, other cops and their apologists have given them. After any shoot, the thin blue line forms a protective wall around the shooter. And if they do happen to go to trial, all they have to do is say they were afraid and even the juries are instructed to give them leeway.

Cops should be on “defensive” ROE. They should only be allowed to fire if fired upon, or there is a genuine threat assessed and verified. If they fail to do this and shoot an innocent person they should go to jail - forever.

Why? First of all because they *asked* for the job - no one forced them to become a police officer. Secondly, they’re *supposed* to be better than everyone else - at least that’s what we’re told. They’re “heroes” for doing nothing more than putting on a uniform and wearing a badge. Finally, they’re supposedly very well-trained - which is why they get to walk around in tacti-cool gear wearing shooting glasses and carrying loaded Glocks and AR-15’s.

Shooting when you’re in *fear* of losing life or limb is a defense for a civilian - not a trained police officer.

The reality is that being a cop is *dangerous* - which means that sometimes (often - depending on where you’re a cop) you will be afraid. If you can’t control your fear and remain calm enough to assess and verify an actual threat to your life prior to opening fire, you shouldn’t be a cop.

Go wash cars or something.

Even a socialist (almost) gets it.

Her main point - perhaps inadvertently spoken - is that local governments are always the culprits when it comes to whether or not their citizens have access to multiple providers.

We have three in my city - about to be four. Not including being able to use 4G wireless if you want to pay that price.

If people don’t like their options, they need to discuss that with their local politicians and leave the FCC out of it.

This “repeal” will have very little affect on the end user. Their Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon bill may go up - but that’s about it.

I have no problem with grocery stores having different brands of potato chips and charging appropriately for shelf space for other brands. But they shouldn’t be allowed to price shelf space based on who they want to be winners and losers.

They also shouldn’t be allowed to put their own brands in proven strategically-advantageous locations or aisle endcaps because it puts the other brands at a disadvantage.

I went from consultant for two years to network engineer, senior engineer, and architect for twenty - now I manage a “SWAT” team of multi-discipline engineers for a major data center owner/operator.

Give me thirty minutes in a room with any millennial “techies” and I can change their mind about net neutrality.

Norms are more difficult. I got my millennial daughter to get it and she’s not a techie but she’s intelligent. Her friends are worthless however.

My favorite are the ones who like to point out that the “government built the Internet” so it’s for everyone therefore Net Neutrality...and the government should enforce it.

What they don’t know - because they weren’t there - is that the Internet they know and love almost didn’t happen *because* of government. They didn’t like or want the TCP/IP stack because they considered it too cumbersome. It wasn’t until the foundation and idea was turned over to private enterprise that the TCP/IP stack flourished and grew and suddenly the *real* Internet was born - built on the backs, intellect, and *money* of private enterprise.

And at the time, the government had no use for it because they hated it and thought it worthless - so they paid no attention to it. Which allowed private enterprise to expand and grow the technology at amazing rates. All without government lifting a finger.

I’ve used this analogy before: Turning the owners of transport into common carriers would be akin to forcing Kroger to offer shelf space to Kraft and Hellman’s at cost just because Kroger sells their own brand of mayonnaise at a price point lower than the others because they own the shelf space and can take advantage of that. Kroger could - in fact - price their shelf space to the point where Kraft and Hellman’s would refuse to buy it - thus making their product the only one on the shelves. They don’t do it because there are other stores that offer their competitor’s products and if they eliminated their competition that way, their customers would begin leaving for those other stores...

Another thing the NN opponents fail to realize is that the costs for non-bandwidth-heavy content providers could actually go *down* if ISPs are no longer bound by regulation to charge everyone the same. Netflix may end up having to pay 10X the amount because they stream bandwidth-heavy media while a site like FR sees their costs reduced because they are nearly all text-based.