🔥 Popular | Latest

Being Alone, Batman, and Books: LIBRARIAN HUMOR ISEE WHAT YOU DID THERE 0 dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: follow forthefuns for more funny stuff Your honor! Please direct your attention towards the manga.As you can see there are small pieces of paper sticking out of every volume.But no such paper is sticking out of the Batman comic.The reason? The Batman book doesn’t belong to the library. The photographer put it there to take a picture. Once again making hasty assumptions, Wright?First of all, I’d like to direct the court’s attention to this particular spot, in the top right-hand corner.Notice how the words are blocking the top of the Batman book.With this in mind, how can you claim that there is “no such paper sticking out of the Batman comic”?! Say whaaaat?Well uhmLook at the size of the paper pieces, they’re all sticking pretty far out.If there was paper in the batman comic, it would be big enough to stick up over the text.And while gravity does exist, it probably won’t make the paper do a 90 degree turn and just lean horisontally left at the middle.Still grasping for straws, Wright?Hypothetically, if there were a paper there, this picture would not be able to prove its presence. I’ve taken the liberty of drawing a diagram to illustrate my point. We are faced with three possibilities. It is possible that (1) the paper was simply tucked in deeper than the others.Paper is a soft material, Wright. It’s not unreasonable for it to do a (2) 90 degree turn. Or perhaps, (3) a paper does not exist there at all. Either way, you cannot prove your client innocent without sufficient evidence.   Which, of course, is impossible thanks to the obtrusive words. I’m sorry Edgeworth.I concede that I can’t disprove theory 1But the image you submited for theory 2 is contradictory.Look at the tilt of the other papers. They clearly prove how much the paper would tilt.And theory 3 is my point! Why would the library’s book not have this piece of paper when the other library books do?While you still have thory 1, there is another contradiction.The books are not in alphabetical order, this proves that the batman comic was placed there specifically for the picture! Ack.(Perhaps I should’ve left the artistry to the forensic artist…)Now hold it right there! It doesn’t matter which direction the paper is going because it’s impossible to prove it even exists!Those theories are all the same! We do not have enough information to prove them. There could be an infinite amount of papers in there for all we know. I simply presented them only so that the court could better understand your baseless conjecture!… I suppose the order of the books do seem out of the ordinary. However, therein lies not just one possibility. Clearly, those are Japanese graphic novels, also known as “manga”. And the Batman comic book is a graphic novel, too, no?Seeing as it currently has only graphic novels in the shelf, it is possible that any other novels have simply not yet been restocked. Asserting whether or not this effect was deliberate is useless– there is no way of knowing if the photographer and the captioner are the same person, let alone their involvement in this picture.Face it Wright, you can’t prove any of these groundless accusations! Did everyone just ignore the library sticker?

dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: ...

Save
Community, Fbi, and Hillary Clinton: BREAKING REPORT: HILLARY'S ENTIRE SERVER WAS HACKED w w w . UncleSam s MisguidedCild r en.c o m GIVING CHINA ACCESS TO EVERY EMAIL IN REAL TIME Over 30,000 emails from Hillary’s email server allegedly landed in the hands of the Chinese Government….in real time, according to an article in the Daily Caller. Every time she pushed the “send” button, China got a copy. And the kicker is that Peter Strzok knew, as well as 3 other FBI officials. Unauthorized access to classified information A Chinese owned company operating in Virginia reportedly hacked into Hillary’s email server, and placed a code that automatically sent a “courtesy copy” to them as part of an intelligence operation. And since Hillary was in the habit of sending classified information via her private email system, whalla! Instant intelligence information at their fingertips. The “anomaly” was found back in 2015. No one did anything about it. ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) investigator Frank Rucker and attorney Janette McMillan met with 4 FBI officials to warn them about the anomaly on several occasions. They did nothing. During Strzok’s testimony last month, Rep Louie Gohmert took him to task over the “anomaly” found in her email server. Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton’s emails? Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won’t name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton’s emails that were going to the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating? Strzok: I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions. Gohmert: Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every singl
Save
Memes, Wrestling, and Army: DOD INVESTIGATING WHETHER MARINES WERE ASLO INVOLVED IN GREEN BERET MURDER New forensic evidence suggests more people may have been present the night of Logan Melgar's death in Mali WASHINGTON — The military is investigating whether two Marine Raiders played a role in the choking death of a Green Beret in Mali last year and the possible cover up of how it occurred, according to five U.S. defense officials. Two Navy SEALs from DEVGRU are already under investigation for their involvement in the strangling death of Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar during the predawn hours of June 4, 2017. Melgar, 34, died in embassy housing he shared with other service members in Bamako, capital of the West African nation. A September 2017 Army Criminal Investigative Division report about the incident quotes Navy SEAL Tony DeDolph saying he and Army Staff Sgt. Logan Melgar were wrestling at 4 a.m. when a fellow SEAL Adamcranston Matthew came in and joined in the horseplay. According to the SEALS, the men fell down together and when they stood up Melgar wasn’t breathing. The SEALs say they attempted CPR and tried to open an airway, but Melgar died of asphyxiation. The same report, however, says a witness told investigators that DeDolph and Matthews were among a group of people angry at Melgar, and had made comments about getting back at him. According to that witness, “DeDolph admitted … that he ‘choked [Melgar] out.’ ” and had used duct tape on him. A military medical examiner ruled that Melgar’s death was “homicide by asphyxiation.” Now forensic evidence uncovered during a Navy investigation indicates two Marines may have been present during the night, say five U.S. defense officials. Adam Stump, spokesperson for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which has been probing the incident, declined to comment on the two Marines. “We don’t talk about open investigations,” Stump said. A spokesperson for U.S. Marine Special Operations Command also declined to comment on the two Marines. “It is our policy not to comment on ongoing investigations,” Maj. Nick Mannweiler said.

WASHINGTON — The military is investigating whether two Marine Raiders played a role in the choking death of a Green Beret in Mali last year ...

Save
Android, Fire, and Guns: THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON Download the official NRA-ILA app! AVAILABLE ON ANDROID AND IPHONE DEVICES You Tube EMAIL ME MORE ABOUT WFB! SUBSCRIBE Federal Investigators Couldn't Illegally Buy Guns Through Legitimate Websites Despite 72 Attempts Agents posing as criminals couldn't et anyone to sell them guns on egitimate internet marketplaces SHARETWEETEMAIL Getty Images Follow @StephenGutowski BY: Stephen Gutowski January 7, 2018 5:00 am <p><a href="https://libertarian-lady.tumblr.com/post/169669892712/coolmanfromthepast-libertarian-lady-federal" class="tumblr_blog">libertarian-lady</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://coolmanfromthepast.tumblr.com/post/169669306121/libertarian-lady-federal-agents-posing-as" class="tumblr_blog">coolmanfromthepast</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarian-lady.tumblr.com/post/169439661502/federal-agents-posing-as-criminals-were-unable-to" class="tumblr_blog">libertarian-lady</a>:</p><blockquote> <p>Federal agents posing as criminals were unable to purchase any firearms from legitimate online marketplaces despite dozens of attempts over a two-year period.</p> <p>Between July 2015 and November 2017 investigators from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), following up on a congressional request, tried to make the illegal private gun purchases through a number of online forums and market places. They made 72 attempts over that time but couldn’t complete a single sale using legitimate sites.</p> <p>In 29 attempts the gun sellers refused the sale after being asked to illegally ship the gun to the buyer. Twenty-seven sellers refused after being told the potential buyer was a felon, domestic abuser, or otherwise prohibited from buying a firearm. Eleven sellers attempted to scam the investigators after finding out they were prohibited from buying firearms with two successfully obtaining money from investigators but never sending the promised firearm. Another five attempts to illegally purchase firearms were ended when the investigators’ accounts were shut down due to suspicious activity.</p> <p>“Tests performed on the Surface Web demonstrated that private sellers GAO contacted on gun forums and other classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to an individual who appeared to be prohibited from possessing a firearm,” Seto J. Bagdoyan and Wayne McElrath of the GAO’s Forensic Audits and Investigative Service section said in a report on the investigation released in November.</p> <p>The investigation specifically targeted online sales by private sellers who do not have a federal firearms license and, in most states, aren’t required to perform background checks on potential buyers. The investigators wanted to see if private sellers on otherwise legitimate online gun forums and marketplaces would break federal law by knowingly selling firearms to somebody who isn’t allowed to buy them.</p> <p>“The purpose of our Surface Web purchase attempts was to determine whether private sellers would knowingly sell a firearm to an individual prohibited from possessing one, as outlined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA),” Bagdoyan and McElrath said in their report. “Our agents used one of five scenarios based on a provision of the GCA when attempting to purchase a firearm. The scenarios involved overtly explaining why our agent was prohibited from possessing a firearm.”</p> <p>The investigators targeted websites based on whether they hosted nationwide or regional ads, the number of ads they could find, the variety of guns available on the site, how easy it was to access the site, and input from outside organizations like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.</p> <p>“To perform Surface Web testing, our agents accessed public gun forums and other classified ads where private nonlicensed sellers listed firearms for sale,” the report said. “These forums and classified ads were identified from our meetings with ATF and third-party entities, and a review of available documentation.”</p> <p>The GAO had originally planned to conduct 75 attempts at illegal purchases on otherwise legitimate sites but gave up after 72 straight failures.</p> <p>The investigation, first highlighted by the Daily Beast‘s Lachlan Markay, had better luck on a collection of websites known for criminal trafficking the GAO refers to as the “Dark Web.” Investigators were able to make two gun purchases in seven attempts through the online havens for illegal activity.</p> <p>“Our agents successfully purchased two firearms from sellers we located on a Dark Web marketplace as a result of seven total attempts,” the report said. “ATF officials stated that the Dark Web is completely anonymous and is designed to facilitate criminal activity online.”</p> <p>The GAO was able to purchase one semi-automatic AR-15 from a Dark Web seller and one Uzi that was advertised as being capable of automatic fire. The agency said it forwarded information about the likely-illegal sales to appropriate law enforcement agencies for follow up.</p> </blockquote> <p>The moral of the story:</p><p>Law-abiding citizens comply with the law. Criminals do not.</p></blockquote> <p>^^^ It’s shocking how many people in the notes are missing this completely </p></blockquote>

libertarian-lady: coolmanfromthepast: libertarian-lady: Federal agents posing as criminals were unable to purchase any firearms from legit...

Save
Being Alone, Batman, and Books: LIBRARIAN HUMOR ISEE WHAT YOU DID THERE 0 dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: follow forthefuns for more funny stuff Your honor! Please direct your attention towards the manga.As you can see there are small pieces of paper sticking out of every volume.But no such paper is sticking out of the Batman comic.The reason? The Batman book doesn’t belong to the library. The photographer put it there to take a picture. Once again making hasty assumptions, Wright?First of all, I’d like to direct the court’s attention to this particular spot, in the top right-hand corner.Notice how the words are blocking the top of the Batman book.With this in mind, how can you claim that there is “no such paper sticking out of the Batman comic”?! Say whaaaat?Well uhmLook at the size of the paper pieces, they’re all sticking pretty far out.If there was paper in the batman comic, it would be big enough to stick up over the text.And while gravity does exist, it probably won’t make the paper do a 90 degree turn and just lean horisontally left at the middle.Still grasping for straws, Wright?Hypothetically, if there were a paper there, this picture would not be able to prove its presence. I’ve taken the liberty of drawing a diagram to illustrate my point. We are faced with three possibilities. It is possible that (1) the paper was simply tucked in deeper than the others.Paper is a soft material, Wright. It’s not unreasonable for it to do a (2) 90 degree turn. Or perhaps, (3) a paper does not exist there at all. Either way, you cannot prove your client innocent without sufficient evidence.   Which, of course, is impossible thanks to the obtrusive words. I’m sorry Edgeworth.I concede that I can’t disprove theory 1But the image you submited for theory 2 is contradictory.Look at the tilt of the other papers. They clearly prove how much the paper would tilt.And theory 3 is my point! Why would the library’s book not have this piece of paper when the other library books do?While you still have thory 1, there is another contradiction.The books are not in alphabetical order, this proves that the batman comic was placed there specifically for the picture! Ack.(Perhaps I should’ve left the artistry to the forensic artist…)Now hold it right there! It doesn’t matter which direction the paper is going because it’s impossible to prove it even exists!Those theories are all the same! We do not have enough information to prove them. There could be an infinite amount of papers in there for all we know. I simply presented them only so that the court could better understand your baseless conjecture!… I suppose the order of the books do seem out of the ordinary. However, therein lies not just one possibility. Clearly, those are Japanese graphic novels, also known as “manga”. And the Batman comic book is a graphic novel, too, no?Seeing as it currently has only graphic novels in the shelf, it is possible that any other novels have simply not yet been restocked. Asserting whether or not this effect was deliberate is useless– there is no way of knowing if the photographer and the captioner are the same person, let alone their involvement in this picture.Face it Wright, you can’t prove any of these groundless accusations! Did everyone just ignore the library sticker?

dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: ...

Save
Being Alone, Batman, and Books: LIBRARIAN HUMOR ISEE WHAT YOU DID THERE 0 bejeweledaqua: dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: follow forthefuns for more funny stuff Your honor! Please direct your attention towards the manga. As you can see there are small pieces of paper sticking out of every volume. But no such paper is sticking out of the Batman comic. The reason? The Batman book doesn’t belong to the library. The photographer put it there to take a picture. Once again making hasty assumptions, Wright? First of all, I’d like to direct the court’s attention to this particular spot, in the top right-hand corner. Notice how the words are blocking the top of the Batman book. With this in mind, how can you claim that there is “no such paper sticking out of the Batman comic”?! Say whaaaat? Well uhm Look at the size of the paper pieces, they’re all sticking pretty far out. If there was paper in the batman comic, it would be big enough to stick up over the text. And while gravity does exist, it probably won’t make the paper do a 90 degree turn and just lean horisontally left at the middle. Still grasping for straws, Wright? Hypothetically, if there were a paper there, this picture would not be able to prove its presence. I’ve taken the liberty of drawing a diagram to illustrate my point. We are faced with three possibilities. It is possible that (1) the paper was simply tucked in deeper than the others. Paper is a soft material, Wright. It’s not unreasonable for it to do a (2) 90 degree turn.  Or perhaps, (3) a paper does not exist there at all.  Either way, you cannot prove your client innocent without sufficient evidence.   Which, of course, is impossible thanks to the obtrusive words. I’m sorry Edgeworth. I concede that I can’t disprove theory 1 But the image you submited for theory 2 is contradictory. Look at the tilt of the other papers. They clearly prove how much the paper would tilt. And theory 3 is my point! Why would the library’s book not have this piece of paper when the other library books do? While you still have thory 1, there is another contradiction. The books are not in alphabetical order, this proves that the batman comic was placed there specifically for the picture! Ack. (Perhaps I should’ve left the artistry to the forensic artist…) Now hold it right there! It doesn’t matter which direction the paper is going because it’s impossible to prove it even exists! Those theories are all the same! We do not have enough information to prove them. There could be an infinite amount of papers in there for all we know. I simply presented them only so that the court could better understand your baseless conjecture! … I suppose the order of the books do seem out of the ordinary. However, therein lies not just one possibility. Clearly, those are Japanese graphic novels, also known as “manga”. And the Batman comic book is a graphic novel, too, no? Seeing as it currently has only graphic novels in the shelf, it is possible that any other novels have simply not yet been restocked. Asserting whether or not this effect was deliberate is useless– there is no way of knowing if the photographer and the captioner are the same person, let alone their involvement in this picture. Face it Wright, you can’t prove any of these groundless accusations! Did everyone just ignore the library sticker? D E AD

bejeweledaqua: dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker:...

Save