Obama Only Calls on Female Reporters During Press Conference

[Travesty]

God look at those women.

Mostly ugly chicks are power hungry. They will make rules to help other ugly women.

None of them try.

Every unsolicited message I get on a dating site from a fatty I reply:

lose weight

Then delete the message and block them.

 

[The Father]

Obama Only Calls on Female Reporters Hideous Monsters with Vaginas During Press Conference

Fixed it for you.

:agree2:

 

[Days of Broken Arrows]

He's weakened the country so bad we can't even show our own films.

Did Fox news tell you that?

Did Facebook teach you that question?

No, but this kind of breathless paranoia and mindless rhetoric is what one hears on Fox news and is responsible for dumbing down political discourse in the country.

Obama has no part in not showing "our own films", even if we concede that he has weakened the country to the point that America's enemies have been emboldened.

In fact, he has made a statement that he disagrees with the film not being shown. And the one of those responsible for caving to N Koreans is a right wing movie theater owner.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-bowed-to-north-korea-over-the-interview.html

So much for Obama being responsible for not being able to show movies.

Making a statement is one thing. But the president is commander-in-chief not a PR person. And that title means he's in charge of the military and our safety. Years ago most presidents served in the military; they weren't just political figureheads.

In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening. Instead, an infrastructure is in place where our country over-polices its own citizens with ridiculous airport searches, highway stops, etc.

The government's job should be to have an airtight border in every respect (real and virtual), respect the citizens, and prevent them from outside threats. That doesn't seem to be happening. If the government spent half as much time preparing for outside threats as it does "monitoring" its own citizens, we wouldn't be in this situation.

And I still think his calling on women only was a distraction. Only now I wonder if it's to lube the country up for Hillary, like that unwatchable show "State of Affairs."

 

[SteveMcMahon]

Obama is hardly to blame for Sony pulling the Interview.

I'll be the first to criticize the President where criticism is due, but this is not such an area. Romney and McCain would do no better.

I get the feeling McCain would nuke North Korea if it looked at him funny.

 

[Soberane]

 

[SteveMcMahon]

Google was hacked during Bush and had its intellectual property and algorithms stolen by the Chinese.

Russian carders using Zeus and other financial Trojan Horse attacks have cost the US banking industry billions directly with credit card fraud and break ins.

US drones and air force unmanned units were hit with viruses and malware, Chinese in origin, and it would cost a billion dollars to clean them out, but last time I checked we still haven't.

The Russians attacked the white house servers directly.

I could go on and on. The problem of cyber security is at what point do you respond with force or sanctions without destabilizing the world in the process? Cyber warfare is the newest front of the modern day battlefield. Old tactics from physical fronts don't necessarily translate to the cyber front. No one has a great strategy right now in the white hat and CIO circles on how to address this issue.

In lots of ways this has happened in the past, when you compare it to the old Age of Sail days when pirates would loot and plunder and go hide out in ports sympathetic to them. That's why the Russians and Chinese laugh when we ask for hackers to be extradited. Pirates carried on like this for a very very long time. From the early 1500s until the late 1780s or so. The British Empire and the Spanish lost millions in trade over pirates. Until territory in the new world got settled and the main powers were in place, only then did pirate coves get busted up and most pirates were hung.

Obama and Bush administrations have the same problems. They do not understand technology at all and that there is a big lack of security professionals willing to work in the government that have all the skills they need. Private sector always pays more.

Sony and Toyota both took shortcuts on quality in the name of greed. Toyota skimped on the brakes and thousands of American people died over that. I personally had one of those Camry that failed and I got into a crash. Sony was lazy at first and had servers accepting payments that had not been patched in over 7 months. After they brought in help, it took years to upgrade their systems and secure it because they were so neglectful for years. Think about this, they only found out because a hacker bragged about it. After this passwords were hacked at least 3 more times. It would take an hour to post all the shit they have done in the last 5 years. Some technology magazines have made case studies on how to secure a company using Sony.

Sony has more money than many top companies worldwide but their culture prevents them from giving a fuck. Japan does not force them to do better. The US doesn't have laws for security compliance either. As long as shit makes money they don't give a fuck.

Movies get cancelled all the time. To them it's a small drop in a bucket. They don't need revenge on anyone. The other movies will pick up the slack. Obama vowing revenge is just stupid empty suit saber rattling. 6 months from now he wouldn't have done shit.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the CIA can do cyber-warfare too:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

The Norks will get payback in kind, if there's anything in their country worth hacking or degrading through electronic means.

Sony has a terrible record for IT security. Only a couple of years ago their entire Playstation Network worldwide was down for a month after it got hacked and millions of credit card numbers were stolen.

You'd think they would have learned.

 

[birdie num num]

Say what you will about Obama, but it least he didn't hire a gay prostitute (Jeff Gannon) to serve as a bogus White House correspondent-like Bush did. He was hired to lob softball questions to W.

 

[ManAbout]

In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

 

[Old Fritz]

How should one respond to a cyber attack? Obviously you want to increase your IT security; but do you retaliate with a bigger attack of your own?

 

[TravelerKai]

How should one respond to a cyber attack? Obviously you want to increase your IT security; but do you retaliate with a bigger attack of your own?

A corporation cannot go on the offensive because that would break the law, compliance, etc.. They can only defend by using IPS or Fireye and Palo Alto security appliances.

The US govt only attacks others based on interests and approvals are needed before that. It usually won't do that unless a great deal of money is involved in some way or a very key objective is met. (ie Stuxnet and Israel destroying Iranian centrifuges)

 

[Duke Castile]

In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

If the pres is going to pussyfoot around and mention it as you pointed out he should take a stand instead of just pandering around. That's all that guy ever does.

He's the "leader" of the "free" world.

 

[ManAbout]

In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

If the pres is going to pussyfoot around and mention it as you pointed out he should take a stand instead of just pandering around. That's all that guy ever does.

He's the "leader" of the "free" world.

What would "taking a stand" in this situation entail? He has flatly stated that Sony shouldn't have cancelled the film because it sends the wrong signal to hackers. Isn't that taking a stand? After his statement Sony has started saying that it hasn't cancelled the film and they are looking for ways to screen it. What more do you want him to do? And if you say retaliate, how do you know that retaliation is not in the works?

 

[Duke Castile]

What was his remark in it's entirety?

 

[zaqan]

They look like overweight albino frogs.

 

[ManAbout]

What was his remark in it's entirety?

It's in the earlier post,

"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

It seems that he is taking a clear stand that he disagrees with the film being pulled. He is disappointed about the bad precedent this sets. But, it's not his decision. In fact his statements have caused Sony to push back and say that they intend to release the film. I am not sure what else you want him to say.

 

[WestIndianArchie]

How is Obama to blame for that stupid movie getting cancelled?

In fact he chastised Sony for doing just that.
Sony then passed the buck @ the Cinema heads, and then Sony came back to say don't count us out yet.

I will never understand the deliberate misreading of current events to suit an agenda.

WIA

 

[TravelerKai]

Obama is trying to create a standard US foreign policy in regards to cyber attacks. Currently we don't have much of one. It's very much a work in progress as we go. Not showing cowardice after an attack does make sense to push agenda wise. Getting Japan, an ally of the US on board is the right move. Govt is supposed to set the tone for corporate culture in that regard.

None of us care for Obama, but facts are facts and we have to give credit where credit is due. Like tuthmosis says, the nuance is in the details.

 

[Geomann180]

What a sexist pig.

G

 

[Days of Broken Arrows]

In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

Look, to answer all the questions here: after Sept. 11, the US created a Dept. of Homeland Security in addition to the Defense Dept. We also have the FBI.

There are a lot of people in those offices who are making the big bucks and they're the ones who should have answers to the many questions above. They have knowledge of things non-government people don't. They should be the ones advising the president and meeting with him and Sony.

Virtual border? No it doesn't sound realistic, but you assume with all those people being paid, someone would have come up with something, considering how traumatic Sept. 11 was. They sure seem to be able to crack down on citizens easy enough, so you'd assume they'd be able to track outside threats somehow, with some technology.

All I know is that a country felt comfortable enough threatening us with all that in place. And with all that in place, it doesn't seem like we can do a whole lot -- unless something is in the works we don't know about. But if they felt comfortable enough, we're not sending the right tone out -- and that usually comes from the Oval Office.

 

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

So how come Obama isn't getting slammed for sexism?