Anonymous Threatens to 'Not Be Kind' to 'Russian Asset' U.S. Rep. Greene

[MamboDervish]

Try reading ALL of the words in the post.

Naturally, I did before my question. Every one of 65 words, not counting "fill in the blank".
If you're unable to explain the meaning of your own post, you shouldn't be surprised that I'm having a hard time with it!
Try again?

 

[uptower]

What anonymous is doing is illegal. While it might be satisfying to “dig up dirt” on a politician, I reckon with MGT there probably isn’t much and what we see is what we get: She makes an ass of herself in public, she is a bigot; she has a shady stock portfolio ( a theme in congress apparently) and she’s as dumb as a rock. We can get all this from reading the paper or watching her on TV, so I struggle to think what hackers might reveal.

If they’re going to cross that line there are better targets. Their effort would be better spent going after the Russian leadership and exposing their crimes and financial dealings, so countries and financial institutions are further pressured into cutting them off.

 

[watsup]

From the article cited in the OP:

“.....she ignored the fact that the war essentially began in 2014 when Putin conducted an unprovoked invasion of the Crimean Peninsula, an area recognized by international law as Ukrainian territory.

Furthermore, Greene said that the current Ukrainian government "only exists because the Obama state department helped to overthrow the previous regime" in 2014. The aforementioned publication cites this line as one oft-repeated in Russian propaganda.

The country's former Russia-aligned President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by his country's own parliament in 2014 when it voted unanimously to kick him out of office. The vote occurred after he reneged on plans to sign treaties with the European Union.”

MTG’s motto: “So much Russian propaganda to distribute, so little time”

 

[RAMOSS]

What anonymous is doing is illegal. While it might be satisfying to “dig up dirt” on a politician, I reckon with MGT there probably isn’t much and what we see is what we get: She makes an ass of herself in public, she is a bigot; she has a shady stock portfolio ( a theme in congress apparently) and she’s as dumb as a rock. We can get all this from reading the paper or watching her on TV, so I struggle to think what hackers might reveal.

If they’re going to cross that line there are better targets. Their effort would be better spent going after the Russian leadership and exposing their crimes and financial dealings, so countries and financial institutions are further pressured into cutting them off.

I am not too sure about that. She seems a bit shady to me.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Naturally, I did before my question. Every one of 65 words, not counting "fill in the blank".
If you're unable to explain the meaning of your own post, you shouldn't be surprised that I'm having a hard time with it!
Try again?

Does

"In current American politics, claimed political party membership means absolutely nothing except as an aid to getting voted into office so that the person can do whatever they feel like doing REGARDLESS of the 'platform' of the political party in which membership is claimed"
​

have any meaning to you?

 

[uptower]

From the article cited in the OP:

“.....she ignored the fact that the war essentially began in 2014 when Putin conducted an unprovoked invasion of the Crimean Peninsula, an area recognized by international law as Ukrainian territory.

Furthermore, Greene said that the current Ukrainian government "only exists because the Obama state department helped to overthrow the previous regime" in 2014. The aforementioned publication cites this line as one oft-repeated in Russian propaganda.

The country's former Russia-aligned President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by his country's own parliament in 2014 when it voted unanimously to kick him out of office. The vote occurred after he reneged on plans to sign treaties with the European Union.”

MTG’s motto: “So much Russian propaganda to distribute, so little time”

I think in this she is the epitome of a useful idiot. She’s not saying this because Russia told her too, but as an article of faith because they are right wing talking points. She does not know or career their origin, only that it plays with the base.

Likewise her ‘ignoring’ the real events, she is most likely entirely unaware as she never followed international geopolitics and still doesn’t.

 

[MamboDervish]

Does

​

"In current American politics, claimed political party membership means absolutely nothing except as an aid to getting voted into office so that the person can do whatever they feel like doing REGARDLESS of the 'platform' of the political party in which membership is claimed"​

​

have any meaning to you?

In relation to my post #6 - the one you responded to - it's a complete non sequitur. They bear no relationship to each other. It won't matter how many times you repeat it, so I ask you again.

What are you trying to say?

 

[ouch]

This is interesting.

I can't wait to see what kind of information that they find on this woman.

I saw her in the congress Wednesday during Zelensky's speech to congress.

While everyone was standing and clapping vigorously, she barely clapped briefly then stopped clapping and just stood there. She didn't like Zelensky's speech. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't want to be there but showed up because she had to.

Whatever it was, the woman should not be in our congress.

I hope whatever Anonymous finds, gets splashed it all over the front pages of as many newspapers as possible.

MSN

www.msn.com

In previous Anonymous hack attacks, had Anonymous warned with threats to do so prior to actually doing so? I honestly can't recall.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I remember when Newsweek was a legitimate news source, even better than Time.

 

[watsup]

I remember when Newsweek was a legitimate news source, even better than Time.

Whereas FOX, for instance, has NEVER been a legitimate news source.

 

[D_NATURED]

It's unfortunate that the likes of Margorie Traitor Greene won't be removed by her constituents or her party and we must hope that cyber-criminals can do the job. It says something about the state of American politics when Republicans would rather be represented by a traitorous republican than a patriotic Democrat, and Democrats would rather rely on the criminal underground to remove enemies rather than trust in the intelligence of voters.

Certainly, there's been a shift by conservatives, away from American positivism. Now, they are the most vocal opponents of the United States and are working harder than the dems ever have at tearing down our nation's institutions, especially democracy.

If Trump runs again, it will be because of the support of the traitor caucus and a general malaise by both sides with regard to their adherence to moral democratic functioning.

 

[HIP56948]

Marjorie Taylor Greene is not the disease of the GOP. She's merely the festering cankerous sore on the lips of her party that reminds us of the incestuous STD the entire Republican Party seems to suffer from. The actions of Anonymous might be the topical balm that makes her disappear in the next election cycle, but we should never forget the underlying party affliction that gave rise to her.

I went to her District map (I think 14th) in Georgia just to see how her constituents have voted in the past.
They'd probably run me out of town within 2 hours. Talk about deep red. Almost scary....

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Whereas FOX, for instance, has NEVER been a legitimate news source.

I didn't see a Fox news story on this thread. Maybe you could use this same post for another hundred threads and not in reply to me on this one, please.

 

[MamboDervish]

I went to her District map (I think 14th) in Georgia just to see how her constituents have voted in the past.
They'd probably run me out of town within 2 hours. Talk about deep red. Almost scary....

Maybe that's why she ran uncontested. No sense throwing party campaign funds behind a losing cause.

 

[watsup]

I didn't see a Fox news story on this thread. Maybe you could use this same post for another hundred threads and not in reply to me on this one, please.

You made a generalized statement with no attempt to justify it, just the typical right wing whining about the MSM. My responses is more accurate by far.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

You made a generalized statement with no attempt to justify it, just the typical right wing whining about the MSM. My responses is more accurate by far.

I made a personalized statement and you got butthurt because I didn't bring up your favorite bobo. The only thing I object to about your response was that it was to me. Sell hackery somewhere else, I'm not interested.

Good day.

 

[watsup]

I made a personalized statement and you got butthurt because I didn't bring up your favorite bobo. The only thing I object to about your response was that it was to me. Sell hackery somewhere else, I'm not interested.

Good day.

Psychological projection. So you get to do hackery, but I can’t respond to it with a more accurate statement? Poor baby.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

This is interesting.

I can't wait to see what kind of information that they find on this woman.

I saw her in the congress Wednesday during Zelensky's speech to congress.

While everyone was standing and clapping vigorously, she barely clapped briefly then stopped clapping and just stood there. She didn't like Zelensky's speech. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't want to be there but showed up because she had to.

Whatever it was, the woman should not be in our congress.

I hope whatever Anonymous finds, gets splashed it all over the front pages of as many newspapers as possible.

MSN

www.msn.com

She's too simple minded to have much of a past. Maybe a clan meeting or two.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

In relation to my post #6 - the one you responded to - it's a complete non sequitur. They bear no relationship to each other. It won't matter how many times you repeat it, so I ask you again.

What are you trying to say?

Just exactly what I did say. That you don't want to admit either that what I said is true or that I did say it is simply not my problem.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Fact check: Democratic activists falsely claim Marjorie Taylor Greene refused to applaud Zelensky | CNN Politics

After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a virtual address to Congress on Wednesday, a claim went viral among some Democrats on Twitter: Georgia's Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a right-wing Republican, had refused to applaud Zelensky.

www.cnn.com

Doesn't make Greene great, but she did clap for Zelenskyy's speech...

Don't spread fake news you guys.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

What Putin is doing the Ukraine is illegal too..

 

[MamboDervish]

Just exactly what I did say. That you don't want to admit either that what I said is true or that I did say it is simply not my problem.

Like I said, true or not, your post bears no relationship to my comments on Greene. The opinions I expressed in my post #6 on Marjorie Taylor Greene stand alone. If you're unable or unwilling to articulate the precise connection you seem to be cryptically alluding to, then stop wasting my time. Use your words, man. Just spit it out . . . . . or move along.

Or, better yet, just admit that you have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Maybe that's why she ran uncontested. No sense throwing party campaign funds behind a losing cause.

And there is the BIG difference between American political parties and Canadian political parties.

In the last Canadian general election (akin to the US House of Representatives election) 100% of the seats were contested, 99.70% of the seats had three or more candidates, around 74.56% of the seats had four or more candidates, and that is considering ONLY the "major parties". There were 0.00% of the seats left "uncontested".

You see, the Canadian political parties actually have "platforms" that are much more "We have actual plans to implement what we say should be done. These are what those plans are. This is why what we say should be done should be done. We want to convince you that what we say should be done should be done and that it should be done using those actual plans." than the American political parties which operate with each individual candidate saying "What do I have to say to make sure that I get elected. And if you elect me then I'm going to do whatever I damn well feel like doing to ensure that I get re-elected REGARDLESS of what I am saying now.".

That (Canadians expecting their elected politicians to spend their time working to achieve something [even if unsuccessful] and not spending most of their time simply running for re-election and/or blocking anything actually being accomplished so that "The Other Guys" look bad) is possibly why the Canadian government has an approval rating that is 18 points higher than the US government has and a disapproval rating that is 25 points lower.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Like I said, true or not, your post bears no relationship to my comments on Greene. The opinions I expressed in my post #6 on Marjorie Taylor Greene stand alone. If you're unable or unwilling to articulate the precise connection you seem to be cryptically alluding to, then stop wasting my time. Use your words, man. Just spit it out . . . . . or move along.

Or, better yet, just admit that you have no idea what you're trying to say.

All I can say is that your position falls squarely within Thomas Paine's

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”
[The American Crisis]​

 

[MamboDervish]

And there is the BIG difference between American political parties and Canadian political parties.

Of course there is - because Canada has a parliamentary political system with proportional representation, vastly different from the American two-party system, which is grotesquely skewed in favor of the states with the least population. In Canada, a person's vote means much more, and when one of your parties fails to achieve overwhelming control, then you're forced into forming coalitions with other popular parties, which can then influence policy. Here in the States you can win government control with a minority, and effectively ignore the political wishes of most Americans. The fundamental structure of Canadian politics precludes that from happening.