Posted on 11/24/2013 10:00:50 AM PST by ilovesarah2012
I don’t go to Taitz’ site.
It is interesting, though, that somebody is putting viruses on her site. NSA?
She probably let them on there herself due to general incompetence.
What it means is that 5 of 6 are not concerned
That can be taken to mean that 1 in 6 or 17% have something to fear.
Not everybody is a computer expert. There could be viruses added to my blog and I wouldn’t even know. But they would have been put there by somebody else, and for a reason.
What reason do you suppose that would be?
Heck if I know.
Lots of viruses can get into your system by visiting infected places.
With kids, it's music and game sites.
For adults, it's porn and blogs.
Obama doesn’t like conservative bloggers, as reflected in this quote by him:
“Now that the government has reopened and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists, and the bloggers, and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict,”
But the atlanticwire at http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/11/obamas-love-affair-columnists/71170/ refers to their blog as “media”, and Obama loves him some media:
“And of course, this isn’t the first time we’ve heard about Obama’s love for the media. Back in 2008, his handlers had trouble regulating his BlackBerry use because he wanted to read blogs all day. Even ours.”
How many media or liberal blogs get viruses on them?
Oh.. so you think it’s a conspiracy?
We know it’s a conspiracy. Somebody is putting viruses on blogs. That is just a fact. Who and why is a valid question.
If it’s only (or mostly) conservative blogs who are victimized it’s reasonable to ask whether the NSA which is known to be putting viruses on people’s computers could also be targeting conservative blogs.
So somebody tell me, do news blogs and/or liberal blogs have viruses added to them?
When Leo Donofrio had his blog it was McAfee that was blacklisting his blog as if he was stealing credit card information even though he had no place on there for credit card numbers to even be given. We know there was a conspiracy to stop traffic to Donofrio’s site. The question is who conspired to do it. Same thing with denial of service attacks. Do liberal blogs/sites ever get hit with DOS attacks?
Again, heck if I know.
I don't look at blogs. I'm of the opinion that blogs are amateur
garbage consisting of made-up, stolen or misspelled material.
Is Free Republic a blog?
It's a people-powered aggregating forum of epic proportions.
You are of the opinion that blogs are “amateur
garbage consisting of made-up, stolen or misspelled material.”
I post the same stuff here as I post on my blog. If it was garbage there it is still garbage here. We talk about news stories that somebody else wrote; is that stealing? Lot of misspellings too.
I’m not sure what’s the difference. I post stuff at my blog and people discuss it, just like here. Both places are people-powered. If it’s information not taken from the treasonous alphabet media we call it a “vanity” here and it’s the same thing as a person would put on a blog and discuss. It’s in fact the ONLY way that information not approved by the treasonous alphabet media has a way to get out to the public. Therefore it is the only threat to Obama’s threatened media. It’s the only voice of resistance left, when it comes to REPORTING information the traitors refuse to mention.
I don’t see the difference. I post here more than at my blog because more people can see it here and I can get better feedback and information/leads for further investigation. But I can upload PDF’s on my blog, which allows me to compile information, sources, images, etc as concisely as I can and easily reference, sort, and link to the posts with the documentation. It’s a tool and I use it as a tool, no more, no less. But what I’m doing there and what I’m doing here are the same things. The location of where I post doesn’t change the value or substance of what I post.
Actual news articles are posted here.
A day later, a blog may post the same thing, re-written with added misspelling and made-up anecdotal frivolity.
Blogs have no assets to be sued, and no obligation even to
make a passing nod at accuracy. Simply because the old media
is untrustworthy does not make the easiest alternative credible.
Blogs are not credible, what reason have they to be?
Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email knows that she had viruses placed on her website (or was it a DOS attack? I can’t remember the details) by somebody at Quantico. US government. US military, to be exact.
Are you at all curious why they did that?
Curious why who did what? According to whom?
Could be true, could be not.
But I’m for damned sure not going to believe a blog.
If blogs are non-credible then so are “news” sites, because there is no way to hold either accountable for wholesale lies. Would you agree?
That being said, there are reporters who do report truthfully, and there are bloggers who report original material truthfully. Would you agree?
My name is public, and can be surmised from my blog. My real-life credibility is on the line every day. Your name is not public; your real-life credibility isn’t on the line at all. If I was only posting on my blog, using my real name, would you be more credible than me simply because you post at a forum (rather than a blog) using an anonymous alias?
I understand your gripe against SOME blogs. I don’t understand your gripe about the concept of a blog. There can be just as much accountability for a blog owner as for anybody in the treasonous media. More, actually, because the reporter can always say the editor made them do something, whereas a blog owner stands or falls on his/her own and can thus be sued, charged, etc for the decisions that were solely his/hers. And libel laws are built to protect “media” entities.
A blog writer shows her documentation. A reporter claims anonymous sources said something. Which one are you more likely to believe? Why?
It's a case of 90% giving the other 10% a bad name.
Like 90% of Congress gives the 10% a bad name. Would you tell everybody not to believe a word from Ted Cruz because there are too many Nancy Pelosi’s in Congress?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
