I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I was surrounded by Springsteen lovers in high school and never really got it then, and was tainted by the HS inundation ever since, so I avoided him to the extent possible.

He referred to too many people directly. I did not know Sandy, Terry, or Mary. Nor, more notably, Wendy. This made it hard for me to relate to her town ripping the bones from Wendy's back. And while I understand the concept of deathtraps, and even suicide raps (I think, maybe), if one was born to engage in a fairly simple activity, assuming they've reached driving age, why haven't they done it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This may be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

Only if you're viewing the thing myopically.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Great. An article that cites Intercept but not Crowdstrike.

True. Greenwald and Taibbi have long been Right Wing shills. And Greenwald was dead wrong about the quality of Snowden's disclosures. As was Taibbi on the 2008 meltdown in Griftopia.

Face it. You've picked a side, and whatever info you get that doesn't support your views you are going to criticize. That's fine. It's also fine for me to remind you of that fact.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Say it ain't so. No Patti Smith? Grandmaster Flash? Gil Scott Heron? Devo?

A lot of my high school listening was split between Zeppelin/Stones on the one hand, and the most out-there free jazz I could find (like the Ornette Coleman album where he "plays" the violin, "Empty Foxhole" I think, or the most flipped out of the Sun Ra). Punk did not hit me until the very end of H.S. and more in college, introduced through ska-punk bands like Fishbone and Mighty, Mighty Bosstones (who were much more of a hardcore band live in the very early days). The only hip hop I knew in high school was Rappers Delight and Run-D.M.C., which I loved. Sheltered child.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why do you see this as low paid jobs? Ford is usually pretty well paid.

They'll do as Carrier did -- aggressively seek to automate domestic plants. This gets rid of workers in smaller batches, over longer periods of time. No big layoffs to be noticed and tweeted about by King Trump.

Everybody planning big layoffs just shifted strategy to less apparent, smaller labor cuts over the long term.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Fuck Netanyahu. I'm sick of his bullshit.
TM

He has been a serious dick. You shouldn't take that sitting down.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Face it. You've picked a side, and whatever info you get that doesn't support your views you are going to criticize. That's fine. It's also fine for me to remind you of that fact.

Trumpian rubbish.

First of all, the idea that there are two sides is absurd. Putting Wonk and Hank and I on the same side because we all voted for Hillary is absurd, unless the sides you are talking about are "civilization" or "not". Wonks a Bernie-supporting anti-globalist, Hank's vote was reluctant and semi-hostile, and I'm your basic internationalist traditionalist Dem, we all have very different views of the world.

You are trying to justify an article that doesn't cite to the main source for detailed information on the hacks and their connection to Russia. Yes, sure, I'm on board with the idea that the FBI/DHS report didn't give many useful technical specifics, but someone else did. If you're writing an article on it, read the key fucking source.

Yes, despite that, if I had to rely on the credibility of sources and only have nonspecific information from, on the one hand, the 17 US intelligence services and, on the other, intercept, wikileaks, and trump tweats, I will indeed be prone to pick the intelligence agencies. In this case, though, I don't have to get there, because there is a detailed report out there dealing with the Russian connection. So there is no need to weigh untrustworthy sources.

Another truly dumb post from you. Based on the Flower anti-hyperbole principles now being applied here, I'll take no position on its comparative stupidity.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

A lot of my high school listening was split between Zeppelin/Stones on the one hand, and the most out-there free jazz I could find (like the Ornette Coleman album where he "plays" the violin, "Empty Foxhole" I think, or the most flipped out of the Sun Ra). Punk did not hit me until the very end of H.S. and more in college, introduced through ska-punk bands like Fishbone and Mighty, Mighty Bosstones (who were much more of a hardcore band live in the very early days). The only hip hop I knew in high school was Rappers Delight and Run-D.M.C., which I loved. Sheltered child.

Ok then. A late bloomer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I was more of a Led Zepplenite.

I still like Zeppelin, but as far as lyrics, when they're singing about Middle Earth, Springsteen's deathtrap seems a much preferable location. Running nowhere with Wendy (good cardio) beats sitting with elders of the gentle race, and watching Mary dance alone might expose me to charges as a peeping Tom, but it beats the darkest depths of Mordor any day.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Trumpian rubbish.

First of all, the idea that there are two sides is absurd. Putting Wonk and Hank and I on the same side because we all voted for Hillary is absurd, unless the sides you are talking about are "civilization" or "not". Wonks a Bernie-supporting anti-globalist, Hank's vote was reluctant and semi-hostile, and I'm your basic internationalist traditionalist Dem, we all have very different views of the world.

You are trying to justify an article that doesn't cite to the main source for detailed information on the hacks and their connection to Russia. Yes, sure, I'm on board with the idea that the FBI/DHS report didn't give many useful technical specifics, but someone else did. If you're writing an article on it, read the key fucking source.

Yes, despite that, if I had to rely on the credibility of sources and only have nonspecific information from, on the one hand, the 17 US intelligence services and, on the other, intercept, wikileaks, and trump tweats, I will indeed be prone to pick the intelligence agencies. In this case, though, I don't have to get there, because there is a detailed report out there dealing with the Russian connection. So there is no need to weigh untrustworthy sources.

Another truly dumb post from you. Based on the Flower anti-hyperbole principles now being applied here, I'll take no position on its comparative stupidity.

Taibbi stated flatly that, from the sources he's seen, he sees little there there.

That you just cited Taibbi and Greenwald as Trumpian rubbish is rich.

For further reading: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-hacking-story

By the way, this is all putting aside the fact that all the hacks did was expose that the DNC was fucking Sanders! On your best day, your best argument is that Russia unfairly told Bernie's kids the truth! You see how for shit this line of attack is for you? Why it sounds like serious sour grapes? Distilled to its core, you are arguing:

"The DNC, at the behest of Hillary's people, engaged in really shitty behavior and did everything they could to screw over a fellow D candidate who had a legitimate chance at the nomination. The Russians hacked DNC emails and exposed this to the public, which hurt Hillary. Don't pay attention to the latter thing. Focus on the former, which is an abomination!"

You get why this message isn't working? You can't say "Sure, my organization was shitty, but no one should have known," and expect sympathy. The more you ask people to excuse the DNC's shittiness and focus on Russia, particularly in a whiny tone, the more they do the reverse. Why? Because it's logical. You can't demand, in a preachy fashion, that someone accept your narrative when you're defending people engaged in shitty behavior.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

First of all, the idea that there are two sides is absurd. Putting Wonk and Hank and I on the same side because we all voted for Hillary is absurd, unless the sides you are talking about are "civilization" or "not". Wonks a Bernie-supporting anti-globalist, Hank's vote was reluctant and semi-hostile, and I'm your basic internationalist traditionalist Dem, we all have very different views of the world.

I didn't say there were two sides. I said you picked a side. I see four sides:

1. Hillary
2. Trump
3. Bernie
4. None of the above

You're in camp 1. And you hate camp 2. Any source arguing 2 sucks and 1 was robbed will be supported by you. Any source arguing 1 sucked, 2 is great, or 2 is okay, will be ripped by you. Any source arguing 3 was screwed by 1 will be recognized, but fought by you on the grounds that 3 was unelectable and unrealistic. Anyone like me, who falls into 4, but enjoys challenging your narratives, will be ripped as a 2 supporter, or 2 enabler.

2 will be in charge. We'll both deal with it. Maybe it'll be great, or a mess, or a fucking disaster. But until I know, I can't whine. But trust me -- if I don't like what I get out of 2, I'll be right there whining with you. But now, this early, that'd be premature. I'll save my bleating until it's warranted.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He referred to too many people directly. I did not know Sandy, Terry, or Mary. Nor, more notably, Wendy. This made it hard for me to relate to her town ripping the bones from Wendy's back. And while I understand the concept of deathtraps, and even suicide raps (I think, maybe), if one was born to engage in a fairly simple activity, assuming they've reached driving age, why haven't they done it?

Sebby, only a man without a soul doesn't know a Wendy, a Mary, or a Sandy. And if falling in love with a Rosalita or a (Puerto Rican) Jane is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

Ty: I received the Springsteen memoir as a generic winter gift-giving holiday present, and am getting ready to start it.

GGG: I think I've told this story before, but Led Zeppelin was so popular at my school that I had to pretend to like them to avoid complete ostracization and the occasional ass-kicking. Listening to Robert Plant's nasally whine still gives me hives.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

the DNC was fucking Sanders!

Do you think there's anything the DNC did that made a difference (as between Sanders and HRC)? I don't. I think the DNC was full of establishment types who were solidly in HRC's camp, but couldn't do more than the next establishment type to help her. What do you think they actually accomplished?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Sebby, only a man without a soul doesn't know a Wendy, a Mary, or a Sandy. And if falling in love with a Rosalita or a (Puerto Rican) Jane is wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

Ty: I received the Springsteen memoir as a generic winter gift-giving holiday present, and am getting ready to start it.

GGG: I think I've told this story before, but Led Zeppelin was so popular at my school that I had to pretend to like them to avoid complete ostracization and the occasional ass-kicking. Listening to Robert Plant's nasally whine still gives me hives.

I'm currently reading "Trouble Boys," the Mats bio, which was thoughtfully gifted to me for holiday time. Damn, Bob Stinson had one fucked up life.

Oh, and Tommy has brought back Bash and Pop. Go see 'em if you get a chance. Tommy Stinson is rock and roll.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Taibbi stated flatly that, from the sources he's seen, he sees little there there.

That you just cited Taibbi and Greenwald as Trumpian rubbish is rich.

For further reading: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-hacking-story

By the way, this is all putting aside the fact that all the hacks did was expose that the DNC was fucking Sanders! On your best day, your best argument is that Russia unfairly told Bernie's kids the truth! You see how for shit this line of attack is for you? Why it sounds like serious sour grapes? Distilled to its core, you are arguing:

"The DNC, at the behest of Hillary's people, engaged in really shitty behavior and did everything they could to screw over a fellow D candidate who had a legitimate chance at the nomination. The Russians hacked DNC emails and exposed this to the public, which hurt Hillary. Don't pay attention to the latter thing. Focus on the former, which is an abomination!"

You get why this message isn't working? You can't say "Sure, my organization was shitty, but no one should have known," and expect sympathy. The more you ask people to excuse the DNC's shittiness and focus on Russia, particularly in a whiny tone, the more they do the reverse. Why? Because it's logical. You can't demand, in a preachy fashion, that someone accept your narrative when you're defending people engaged in shitty behavior.

You keep ignoring the main source for info.

As to the leaks, as opposed to the hacks, most of it is pretty meh, and we certainly talked about it during the campaign.

As of the facts of the hacks, what we know is way more than what was leaked. We know they included both Dem and republican organizations (thought we don't know what Republican ones outside of the Illinois party). We know they included the white house and state and other governmental agencies. We know that what was leaked appears to be selectively focused on helping Trump/hurting Hillary. And we know these things not just because the intelligence community has told us, but also because there is a detailed private report out there that you're scrupulously avoiding.

So you want to do nothing to further investigate this?