rigorousintuition.ca

Nordic » 10 Dec 2016 17:41 wrote:It's easy. Assange isn't an idiot and was quick to recognize that Hillary's desire to start a war with Russia presented a grave threat to the world.

Also she was actually powerful and had a record and was surrounded by the most dangerous supporters in earth.

Also they all seemed to enjoy emailing. A lot.

Trump is an old school guy. He probably doesn't go a lot of emailing. Or texting. Why would he? IT LEAVES A PAPER TRAIL.

He's not stupid. The Democrats? Stupid, arrogant. And in this case as evil as any politicians in history.

You're familiar with ISIS? You remember 9/11? You've seen the atrocities in Yemen? All the work of the neocons. Including Hillary and all her cronies.

This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key
Re: The Chelsea Clinton fundraiser that should worry Hillary’s pro-Israel backers

From:dcheng@hillaryclinton.com
To: mbronfein@gmail.com

CC: john.podesta@gmail.com

Date: 2016-01-27 14:16
Subject: Re: The Chelsea Clinton fundraiser that should worry Hillary’s pro-Israel backers

Thanks for flagging - will look into this asap

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Michael Bronfein <mbronfein@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am fielding quite a few concerns over this.. , seems to have some viral
> qualities.. FYI
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Cary Luskin <cary@thebigtv.com>
> *Subject: **Fwd: The Chelsea Clinton fundraiser that should worry
> Hillary’s pro-Israel backers*
> *Date: *January 27, 2016 at 10:34:22 AM EST
> *To: *mbronfein@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> The Chelsea Clinton fundraiser that should worry Hillary’s pro-Israel
> backers
> Resize Text
>
> Print Article
>
> Comments 92
>
> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... id=ss_mail#>
> By Jennifer Rubin <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jennifer-rubin> January
> 25
> <Jrubinblogger@gmail.com?subject=Reader%20feedback%20for%20%27The%20Chelsea%20Clinton%20fundraiser%20that%20should%20worry%20Hillary%E2%80%99s%20pro-Israel%20backers%27>
>
> [image: Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reacts during a
> plenary session at the United Nations building in Vienna, Austria July 14,
> 2015. Iran and six major world powers reached a nuclear deal on Tuesday,
> capping more than a decade of on-off negotiations with an agreement that
> could potentially transform the Middle East, and which Israel called an
> "historic surrender". REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY]Iranian
> Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reacts during a plenary session at
> the United Nations building in Vienna, Austria July 14, 2015.
> (REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger)
>
> For $250,”friends” — or $1000 for a “champion” (photo included) — you too
> can attend a fundraiser with Chelsea Clinton for her mother at the home
> of Michael and Sholeh Chegini in Newport Coast, California, according to an
> invitation to the event obtained by Right Turn. Michael Chegini served on
> theboard of directors
> <http://www.niacouncil.org/niac-sets-in- ... alifornia/>
> and thereafter the advisory board
> <http://national%20iranian%20american%20council%20%28niac%29./> of
> the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a notorious group with
> links to the Iranian regime
> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... break>that
> opposed, among other things, any sanctions on Iran.
>
> “The Clintons never miss an opportunity to put money ahead of principle,”
> a spokesman for the Republican Jewish Coalition told me. “They should know
> better than raising money from folks whose primary concern has been
> supporting the NIAC — a notorious supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs
> in Iran. Instead as is always the case, the Clintons have thrown principle
> out the window in exchange for cold hard cash.”
>
> The NIAC, you may recall, was forced to pay damages for a spurious
> lawsuit against blogger Hassan Daioleslam, who revealed the NIAC’s
> activities on behalf of the Islamist fundamentalist government that is
> dedicated to Israel’s destruction. (A federal court found
> <http://www.businessinsider.com/americas ... -2015-3>in
> 2012 “that the work of NIAC president and founder Tritra Parsi was ‘not
> inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate
> for the regime.’ The judge essentially found it was conceivable that NIAC
> could reasonably be accused of lobbying on behalf of Iran, so Daioleslam’s
> blog posts weren’t defamatory.”)
>
> This is not the first Clinton encounter with the NIAC. Bill Clinton, while
> Hillary was secretary of state, according to a Fox News report
> <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09 ... group.html>,
> tried through an aide to get approval for a speaking engagement with the > NIAC: “An aide to Bill Clinton asked the State Department in 2012 about the > former president potentially delivering a paid speech to an Iranian > government-tied group that has pushed for an end to all U.S. sanctions > against Tehran, according to an email exclusively obtained by Fox News.” > Ultimately Bill Clinton did not do the speech, nor other “paid speaking > gigs in North Korea and the Republic of the Congo – an event that would > have included notorious Democratic Republic of the Congo leader Joseph > Kabila.” (Some may also recall the group tried to block > <https://www.commentarymagazine.com/fore ... nnis-ross/> former > Obama adviser Dennis Ross’s appointment). > > It does however suggest that the Clintons are quite comfortable with > taking money from people with ties to apologists for the Iranian regime. It > is not clear whether this falls under the category > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html> of > the Clintons willingness to take money for themselves and their foundation > <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/po ... ation.html> from > scoundrels and despots (e.g. Arab countries that oppress women, Russian > uranium oligarchs) or whether this signals specifically that propagandists > for Iran would have Hillary Clinton’s ear should she make it to the White > House. Former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton sees it as the > latter. “This is yet more evidence that a Clinton foreign policy on Iran > will be no different from what we have now,” he told me. > > The event should also serve as a reminder to Clinton’s pro-Israel backers, > argues Noah Pollak, executive director of the conservative Emergency > Committee for Israel: “So it is up to her pro-Israel donors to insist that > she cannot dance at two weddings. To the extent they do not deliver this > message, they share part of the blame for the Democratic Party’s slide into > anti-Israel politics.” > > In any event, it is one more reminder that with Clinton comes a whole > parade of influence peddlers, some of whom have links to interests contrary > to American national security. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise > Institute, observing that the fundraiser “just isn’t good politics,” asks, > “Surely there’s someone else who can help Hillary raise money?” Well, there > seems to be no one from whom Bill and Hillary Clinton will not take money. > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/jennifer-rubin> > Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported > opinion from a conservative perspective. > > > -- *Dennis Cheng* National Finance Director Hillary for America dcheng@hillaryclinton.com

seemslikeadream » 10 Dec 2016 15:09 wrote:I do not think Wikileaks is Russian propaganda...I do not think the emails are forgeries ...I just want to know why Wikileaks did not....has not leaked anything on Trump or the RNC

Study: Half of people "remember" events that never happened
(via CBS News, dated December 9th)

JOKE’S ON WHO?

Dylann Roof, 4chan, and the New Online Racism

4chan’s trolling culture didn’t just birth Guy Fawkes hacktivism—it also inspired the racist and neo-fascist sites where the Charleston terrorist lurked.

JACOB SIEGEL 06.29.15

A reactionary, defiantly anti-social politics has been emerging for the last decade. It was well known under the auspices of “trolling” and well hidden by its pretense of trickstersism. It was actually juvenile fascism and vitriolic racism but, because it grinned and operated in cyberspace, it was a sensation when it first appeared less than a decade ago. Excitable theorists, bored journalists and naive political activists looked at its strange, adolescent face and pronounced on its revolutionary potential.

According to the accepted wisdom, trolls were fiercely apolitical pranksters up until they put on Guy Fawkes masks and became the radical progressives known as “Anonymous.” But Anonymous doesn’t have a monopoly on trolling’s political legacy. They are only its nominally left-wing manifestation. Something else has been growing in the online ferment they came out of—something that Anonymous and its supporters want to disown—a politics that is temperamentally of the right, not quite coherent, though Anonymous isn’t always either, but unified by certain passions, a conspiratorial bigotry and anti-black racism above all.

This is another legacy of 4chan, the infamous online message board that spawned trolling culture. It is a different branch of politics than the hackitivism associated with Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring, but its roots are the same. While Anonymous has gotten most of the attention, the trolls they left behind on 4chan have seen their influence spread as well, though without a catch-all name or striking avatar to easily refer to them. You can see this other side of trolling’s inheritance spreading on popular sites like Reddit and in the widespread adoption of the rhetorical style they developed: using bombast and absurdism to hide racist tropes in conceptual riddles.

guruilla » 11 Dec 2016 05:05 wrote:

Joe Hillshoist » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:48 am wrote:

Nordic » 10 Dec 2016 14:02 wrote:But where do you draw the line? Do you keep completely mum about everything for fear it might have unintended consequences somewhere down the road?

No but you have to pay some mind to the consequences and how you present your information.

Anyone else notice the irony of people first dismissing that Alefantis, Abramovic & friends have any accountability for their sick & creepy ideas about "self expression" coz it's just art (and that's a dangerous line to cross), and yet now you're wanting to hold researchers accountable for trying to get at the truth? Double standard?

slomo » 11 Dec 2016 13:52 wrote:I am totally not buying the crap that by participating in an online discussion about elite CP networks I am therefore responsible for someone else's criminal actions.

By that logic, nothing of political consequence should ever be discussed online.

That's a straight-up shaming tactic with the objective of shutting down legitimate discussion.

Sorry, not buying.

slomo » 11 Dec 2016 06:45 wrote:Let me tell you a little story about science. My most highly cited work is a paper that is considered seminal. Everybody in the field knows the paper, because it changed the way things are done. The idea for it started in a conference room, where I said to my colleagues, "you know... it's possible that [the hypothesis that was eventually published and is now accepted]." One co-author of the paper fought me bitterly for months, he simply did not believe that what I was proposing was "real". Of course, he made me jump through more and more hoops to satisfy him. Eventually he conceded that I was probably right. More hoops were presented in the review stage of the work. All of these challenges of course made the paper better.

None of this drama is evident in the published version of the paper. It's presented as if we conceived of X, Y, and Z, in that order, from the very start.

This is totally normal, it's the way things are done.

Joe Hillshoist » 10 Dec 2016 20:29 wrote: Everyone knows this is how "science works" and if they don't they didn't listen in school. What is your point?

Unless its to say if guruilla had to deal with your co author his input would be startlingly low?