Ohhhh gawd. You can literally insert your argument into mine. Just switch the actors. The only real difference is we see the motive, we see the actions, we see cover up. You guys ignore reality. For what? Supreme Court justices and bringing back "coal"? You are devoid of a conscience.

(06-02-2017 11:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  17 lying anonymous Obama officala from poorly run agencies disagree with you Hood.

FIFY

(06-02-2017 11:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhh gawd. You can literally insert your argument into mine. Just switch the actors. The only real difference is we see the motive, we see the actions, we see cover up. You guys ignore reality. For what? Supreme Court justices and bringing back "coal"? You are devoid of a conscience.

You see what you want to see regardless of evidence or the lack thereof. You believe it so much to be true that you don't care that there is no evidence of it.

(06-02-2017 11:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  17 Intelligence agencies disagree with you Hood.

Source? What are those opinions based on?

(06-02-2017 10:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Again. Owl makes statements he can't possibly back up. Meanwhile Trump still has no comments. Must be waiting for Kilsyak to tell him what to say.

I've made no statements that I cannot and did not back up.

Again, I ask you the question. Do you believe it was only "the election" that they tried to hack, or that they have been hacking all along?

That Hillary's server was hacked. No proof of this.

(06-02-2017 11:40 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That Hillary's server was hacked. No proof of this.

I'm confused, are you now saying that Russia did not hack Hillary's server and give her emails to wikileaks? You agree It was a leak and not a hack?

(06-02-2017 11:40 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That Hillary's server was hacked. No proof of this.

Did you read my argument? With what part do you disagree? I'm using something called logic, with which you may not be familiar.

Do you think the Russians were not trying to hack back then?

Do you think there was some magic that protected Hillary's server from them?

Do you not believe that a non-secure server belonging to the Secretary of State and sending and receiving email from/to SecState would not have been an inviting target?

Do you not believe that the Russians, the Chinese, and everybody else would not have been using the most sophisticated hacking tools that they could get their hands on?

How exactly is it that you think it would not have been hacked in four years?

Are you saying that unless they produce publicly something that came off Hillary's server, you are not going to believe they hacked it? That's incredibly stupid and naive, but if that's your opinion you are entitled to it. They would not produce publicly anything that came off Hillary's server for the same reason that the Brits didn't tell the Nazis about Bletchley Park and Enigma. If you tell them that you broke in, they stop using it, and you don't get any more information.

Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.

That wasn't evidence. Do you even know what evidence means?

Ohhhhh GAWD JUGNAUT....................... It was the DNC's server that was hacked and Owl using your standard. What was thrown out on wikileaks from Hillary's server. It was Podesta's emails emails not Hillary's. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HILLRY"S SERVER WAS HACKED. No info leaked from it. If you have ANYTHING that shows it present it. If not please stop saying it. It works on the rubes sure but somewhere honesty has to creep back into reality. Saying Hillary's server was hacked with presenting zero evidence of that is fundamentally dishonest. Maybe I didn't read it. maybe it's out there. If so I am wrong but I just googled it and I haven't seen ANYTHING. If you have it. Present it.

Without that. The hypocrisy from you guys is stomach turning.

"Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.:


This coming from the guy who says there has been no 'evidence" of Russia tampering with the election. Absolutely hysterical in it's hypocrisy.

17 intelligence agencies have told you that.

(06-02-2017 12:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.:


This coming from the guy who says there has been no 'evidence" of Russia tampering with the election. Absolutely hysterical in it's hypocrisy.

17 intelligence agencies have told you that.

so the Russians cast votes for Trump?

(06-02-2017 12:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.:


This coming from the guy who says there has been no 'evidence" of Russia tampering with the election. Absolutely hysterical in it's hypocrisy.

17 intelligence agencies have told you that.

bwahahahahahaha still falling for the fake news. If you would pause and taste what the libturds are shoving in your mouth, instead of blindly swallowing, you would be less likely to be a gruber.

(06-02-2017 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 09:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "hacking classified information off Hillary's server"
Any proof of this whatsoever....... Nothing has ever been made so much out of so little. All coming from the hyped up Benghazi witch hunt mind you. Then when 17 intelligence agencies and PUTIN HIMSELF tells you there was election hacking...... crickets.........

What do you really think are the odds that Hillary's server got hacked? 98%?

I'd say higher than that. We know the Russians, and Chinese, and God knows who else are attempting to hack us at every turn. Hillary's server would have been very low hanging fruit. Do you really, seriously, believe that in four years they never found it?

Of course, the "proof" you demand, seeing something leaked from the hacks, is never going to materialize. The value of that information is not in making it public, like Podesta's emails. It's in keeping it undisclosed and using it for intel purposes. Any information hacked from Hillary's server that became public knowledge would immediately lose its value.

No, you're not going to see the "proof" you demand, and neither am I. That means absolutely zero with regard to whether it was hacked or not. You look at the data we do know--heavy Russian hacking activity, heavy activity from other nations, focus is going to be on computers in and around DC area and messages coming in and out of DC area, totally unsecured server with valuable information on it, lots of high-tech tools available to search for just such boxes and penetrate any firewalls they have. Anybody who thinks that there is any reasonable likelihood that it wasn't hacked is either ignorant of the facts, or too partisan to see them, or else hopelessly stupid.

And as far as hacking the election, nobody has said that. They hacked Podesta's email. If it was they who did the hacking, which is still an open issue. That's not hacking the election. They TRIED to hack more, just as they are trying to hack more today and have been trying to hack more since hacking began. That's all the intel guys said. And they don't have proof, they're making informed guesses. Without access to the servers--the best source of information--informed guesses is all they can do. That's what intel is about, and it's wrong about as often as it is right. Old rule of thumb in the intel business--the more people who agree, the more likely it is to be wrong. Mach, serious question, are you naive enough to believe that it was ONLY the election that they tried to hack?

They saw evidence that numerous intelligence agencies had tried (and probably succeeded) in hacking it. The number was at least 5.

(06-02-2017 12:15 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.:


This coming from the guy who says there has been no 'evidence" of Russia tampering with the election. Absolutely hysterical in it's hypocrisy.

17 intelligence agencies have told you that.

so the Russians cast votes for Trump?

No one has said anything of the sort.

(06-02-2017 09:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "hacking classified information off Hillary's server"

Any proof of this whatsoever....... Nothing has ever been made so much out of so little. All coming from the hyped up Benghazi witch hunt mind you. Then when 17 intelligence agencies and PUTIN HIMSELF tells you there was election hacking...... crickets.........

You keep ignoring the facts:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...ere-frequ/
"...The FBI, which investigated Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, said it discovered some hack attempts, but said it could not say one way or the other if any attempts succeeded. Mrs. Clinton’s server was too outdated, and the capabilities of potential foreign hackers too good to be able to trace them afterward, FBI Director James B. Comey told Congress this summer...."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/...e-n2240856
"...5) FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it...."

Meanwhile, your "17 agencies" were Clapper's handpicked sycophants from 3 agencies purporting to talk for 17 and even then they said they had no evidence of "election" hacking, only hacking of stupid Democrats.

(06-02-2017 12:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.:


This coming from the guy who says there has been no 'evidence" of Russia tampering with the election. Absolutely hysterical in it's hypocrisy.

17 intelligence agencies have told you that.

I count at least 5 post asking you for a link to the "17 intelligence agencies have told you that"

Why aren't you giving us the link? Or is that just one more thing you made up, in your mind?

Now a teaching moment...after almost 20,000 post a person should know how to "quote" a post he's replying to. It's really not that difficult. On a scale of 1-10 it's lower than a 1.

Look at the below picture and you will see the reply button I highlighted in yellow. To quote a person you just click on the reply and the post you are replying to is QUOTED. It really is that simple

(06-02-2017 11:29 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 11:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhh gawd. You can literally insert your argument into mine. Just switch the actors. The only real difference is we see the motive, we see the actions, we see cover up. You guys ignore reality. For what? Supreme Court justices and bringing back "coal"? You are devoid of a conscience.

You see what you want to see regardless of evidence or the lack thereof. You believe it so much to be true that you don't care that there is no evidence of it.

And you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

(06-02-2017 12:07 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhhh GAWD JUGNAUT....................... It was the DNC's server that was hacked and Owl using your standard. What was thrown out on wikileaks from Hillary's server. It was Podesta's emails emails not Hillary's. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HILLRY"S SERVER WAS HACKED. No info leaked from it. If you have ANYTHING that shows it present it. If not please stop saying it. It works on the rubes sure but somewhere honesty has to creep back into reality. Saying Hillary's server was hacked with presenting zero evidence of that is fundamentally dishonest. Maybe I didn't read it. maybe it's out there. If so I am wrong but I just googled it and I haven't seen ANYTHING. If you have it. Present it.

Without that. The hypocrisy from you guys is stomach turning.

You are beginning to look as ridiculous on this as on those 98% predictions.

(06-02-2017 12:31 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 12:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "Your posts are making it obvious that you don't know how information security and communications security work.:


This coming from the guy who says there has been no 'evidence" of Russia tampering with the election. Absolutely hysterical in it's hypocrisy.

17 intelligence agencies have told you that.

I count at least 5 post asking you for a link to the "17 intelligence agencies have told you that"

Why aren't you giving us the link? Or is that just one more thing you made up, in your mind?

Now a teaching moment...after almost 20,000 post a person should know how to "quote" a post he's replying to. It's really not that difficult. On a scale of 1-10 it's lower than a 1.

Look at the below picture and you will see the reply button I highlighted in yellow. To quote a person you just click on the reply and the post you are replying to is QUOTED. It really is that simple

Liberals lie. What's new?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...ee2c5af58e

From Clapper's own under oath mouth.

Quote:As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term.

The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies. They were given complete, unfettered mutual access to all sensitive raw intelligence data, and importantly, complete independence to reach their findings. They found that the Russian government pursued a multifaceted influence campaign in the run-up to the election, including aggressive use of cyber capabilities.