TY Baker!! Bewbs for you.
Go for the GOLD anons!!!! We are on the home stretch.
That fucking deep state AI needs to go DOWN.
DIG MEME PRAY
Especially you bread SHITTERS!
Good Advice
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6XN7luuBSluF/?
Stalin Speech 1941 Red Army Parade 7 November (English Subtitles)
6min
She's probably been taking selfies of her tits all night and whipping herself into a lather about anons.
Still, this is not a criminal act. So should not be a third strike. That's just retarded lib brain.
Commies burn the US flag all the fucking time. Where is the outrage? They says its free speech.
Ya know…
Those nasty germans.. Oh wait!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50870939
MPs have backed Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan for the UK to leave the EU on 31 January.
They voted 358 to 234 - a majority of 124 - in favour of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, which now goes on to further scrutiny in Parliament.
The bill would also ban an extension of the transition period - during which the UK is out of the EU but follows many of its rules - past 2020.
The PM said the country was now "one step closer to getting Brexit done".
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told his MPs to vote against the bill, saying there was "a better and fairer way" to leave the EU - but six of them backed the government.
Mr Johnson insists a trade deal with the EU can be in place by the end of the transition period, but critics say this timescale is unrealistic.
LIVE: Reaction to Brexit vote
What is the Withdrawal Agreement Bill?
What could Brexit look like by 2021?
Brexit bill to give new powers to British judges
Government to shut Brexit department on 31 January
The bill had been expected to pass easily after the Conservatives won an 80-seat majority at last week's general election.
MPs also backed the timetable for further debate on the bill over three days when they return after the Christmas recess - on 7, 8 and 9 January.
How did your MP vote on the latest Brexit bill?
Enter a postcode, or the name or constituency of your MP
Type in 2 or more characters for results.
Submit search
The government says it will get the bill into law in time for the 31 January Brexit deadline.
The legislation, which would implement the Brexit agreement the prime minister reached with the EU in October, was introduced in Thursday's Queen's Speech, setting out the government's priorities for the next year.
Image copyrightAFP PHOTO/JESSICA TAYLOR/UK PARLIAMENT
There are changes to the previous bill, which was backed by the Commons in October, but withdrawn by the government after MPs rejected a three-day deadline for getting it through Parliament.
The changes include:
Legally prohibiting the government from extending the transition period - during which a trade deal between the UK and EU will be discussed - beyond 31 December 2020
Allowing more UK courts to reconsider European Court of Justice rulings that have been retained in UK law after Brexit
Requiring ministers to report annually to Parliament on disputes with the EU under the prime minister's withdrawal agreement
Repealing spent legislation that "now serves no purpose"
The bill also loses a previous clause on strengthening workers' rights.
The government now says it will deal with this issue in a separate piece of legislation, but the TUC has warned that the change will help "drive down" working conditions.
Getty
The road to Brexit
June 2016:
UK votes to leave European Union in referendum
Mar 2017:Government triggers Article 50 to start withdrawal process
Nov 2018:EU leaders and Theresa May agree withdrawal deal
Jan-Mar 2019:UK Parliament rejects deal three times
Oct 2019:New PM Boris Johnson agrees deal with EU
Dec 2019:MPs back Johnson’s Brexit bill by majority 124 votes
Beginning the debate in the Commons, the prime minister said his bill "learns the emphatic lesson of the last Parliament" and "rejects any further delay".
"It ensures we depart on 31 January. At that point Brexit will be done. It will be over," he told MPs.
Media captionJeremy Corbyn: "We still believe this is a terrible deal"
Labour leader Mr Corbyn said the government's "mishandling of Brexit" had "paralysed the political system," divided communities and was a "national embarrassment".
He said MPs "have to respect the decision" of the EU referendum in 2016 "and move on".
"However, that doesn't mean that we as a party should abandon our basic principles," he said.
"Labour will not support this bill, as we remain certain there is a better and fairer way for this country to leave the EU."
The SNP's Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, said: "Scotland still totally and utterly rejects Brexit, yet the prime minister is blindly hurtling towards the cliff edge with these Brexit plans that will leave us poorer, leave us worse off."
On the change in the bill that would legally prohibit the government from extending the transition period beyond 31 December 2020, Mr Blackford said: "By placing that deadline, that risk of a no-deal Brexit, that we all fear is very much, is on the table again."
And the Democratic Unionist Party's Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said there was a "major contradiction" in the prime minister's deal "that causes us great concern".
He said, while it mentioned "unfettered access" for Northern Ireland when it comes to trade in the UK, it also had customs arrangements "that inhibit our ability to have that unfettered access".
In the 2016 referendum, the UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the EU. But the subsequent difficulties in getting Brexit through Parliament have caused gridlock at Westminster.
An earlier withdrawal agreement - reached between previous PM Mrs May and the EU - was rejected three times by MPs.
Gold Confiscation History
Napoleon
Fertility Rates
Haitian President EXPOSES the Clinton Foundation & Hillary (2016)
Former Senate President of Haiti, Bernard Sansaricq, shocked a large crowd at a Trump campaign event in Little Haiti, FL. Sansaricq exposes all of the dirty dealings of the Clinton’s in Haiti while he was still in office. Donald Trump to his credit, allowed him to speak his mind and expose to the world what kind of criminals are attempting to scratch and claw their way back into our White House.
Sansaricq also claims he begged the Clinton Administration not to invade Haiti. His request was followed up with a visit by an anonymous messenger from the White House who encouraged him to “side” with the Clinton Administration and he would “be the richest man in Haiti.”
He also suggests that Hillary Clinton “disclose the audit of all money” related to the Haiti earthquake crisis, as he claims they scammed the poorest citizens of Haiti out of BILLIONS of dollars through the Clinton Foundation.
“Not even 2% of that money went back to Haiti. So Mr. Trump, we are asking you, begging you, the Haitian community will side with you if one day, you ask Hillary Clinton publicly to disclose the audit of all of the money they have stolen from Haiti in 2010 after the earthquake. Haiti is a very poor country. Haiti needs defenders. You said you would champion our cause. We welcome you sir and we will work with you. Ask Hillary Clinton publicly, during your next debate for an audit of all of the money they have stolen from Haiti.”
Watch this stunning confession of bribery, and threats during the Clinton presidency when Bill tried to oust the regime in Haiti.
https://archive.md/9GK0c
OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE AUTHENTICATOR
KILLED ON A GoPRO: (posted today)
It's old, but gold. No harm in putting it in now that we have moar normie eyes on the board.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-12/uoc-ohs121719.php
NEWS RELEASE 18-DEC-2019
Online hate speech could be contained like a computer virus, say Cambridge researchers
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
IMAGE
IMAGE: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A POSSIBLE APPROACH FOR A QUARANTINE SCREEN, COMPLETE WITH HATE O'METER. view more
CREDIT: STEFANIE ULLMAN
The spread of hate speech via social media could be tackled using the same "quarantine" approach deployed to combat malicious software, according to University of Cambridge researchers.
Definitions of hate speech vary depending on nation, law and platform, and just blocking keywords is ineffectual: graphic descriptions of violence need not contain obvious ethnic slurs to constitute racist death threats, for example.
As such, hate speech is difficult to detect automatically. It has to be reported by those exposed to it, after the intended "psychological harm" is inflicted, with armies of moderators required to judge every case.
This is the new front line of an ancient debate: freedom of speech versus poisonous language.
Now, an engineer and a linguist have published a proposal in the journal Ethics and Information Technology that harnesses cyber security techniques to give control to those targeted, without resorting to censorship.
Cambridge language and machine learning experts are using databases of threats and violent insults to build algorithms that can provide a score for the likelihood of an online message containing forms of hate speech.
As these algorithms get refined, potential hate speech could be identified and "quarantined". Users would receive a warning alert with a "Hate O'Meter" - the hate speech severity score - the sender's name, and an option to view the content or delete unseen.
This approach is akin to spam and malware filters, and researchers from the 'Giving Voice to Digital Democracies' project believe it could dramatically reduce the amount of hate speech people are forced to experience. They are aiming to have a prototype ready in early 2020.
"Hate speech is a form of intentional online harm, like malware, and can therefore be handled by means of quarantining," said co-author and linguist Dr Stefanie Ullman. "In fact, a lot of hate speech is actually generated by software such as Twitter bots."
"Companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google generally respond reactively to hate speech," said co-author and engineer Dr Marcus Tomalin. "This may be okay for those who don't encounter it often. For others it's too little, too late."
"Many women and people from minority groups in the public eye receive anonymous hate speech for daring to have an online presence. We are seeing this deter people from entering or continuing in public life, often those from groups in need of greater representation," he said.
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently told a UK audience that hate speech posed a "threat to democracies", in the wake of many women MPs citing online abuse as part of the reason they will no longer stand for election.
While in a Georgetown University address, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spoke of "broad disagreements over what qualifies as hate" and argued: "we should err on the side of greater expression".
The researchers say their proposal is not a magic bullet, but it does sit between the "extreme libertarian and authoritarian approaches" of either entirely permitting or prohibiting certain language online.
Importantly, the user becomes the arbiter. "Many people don't like the idea of an unelected corporation or micromanaging government deciding what we can and can't say to each other," said Tomalin.
"Our system will flag when you should be careful, but it's always your call. It doesn't stop people posting or viewing what they like, but it gives much needed control to those being inundated with hate."
In the paper, the researchers refer to detection algorithms achieving 60% accuracy - not much better than chance. Tomalin's machine learning lab has now got this up to 80%, and he anticipates continued improvement of the mathematical modeling.
Meanwhile, Ullman gathers more "training data": verified hate speech from which the algorithms can learn. This helps refine the "confidence scores" that determine a quarantine and subsequent Hate O'Meter read-out, which could be set like a sensitivity dial depending on user preference.
A basic example might involve a word like 'bitch': a misogynistic slur, but also a legitimate term in contexts such as dog breeding. It's the algorithmic analysis of where such a word sits syntactically - the types of surrounding words and semantic relations between them - that informs the hate speech score.
"Identifying individual keywords isn't enough, we are looking at entire sentence structures and far beyond. Sociolinguistic information in user profiles and posting histories can all help improve the classification process," said Ullman.
Added Tomalin: "Through automated quarantines that provide guidance on the strength of hateful content, we can empower those at the receiving end of the hate speech poisoning our online discourses."
However, the researchers, who work in Cambridge's Centre for Research into Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (CRASSH), say that - as with computer viruses - there will always be an arms race between hate speech and systems for limiting it.
The project has also begun to look at "counter-speech": the ways people respond to hate speech. The researchers intend to feed into debates around how virtual assistants such as 'Siri' should respond to threats and intimidation.
###
The work has been funded by the International Foundation for the Humanities and Social Change.
https://www.redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2019/12/20/jim-jordan-house-democrats-withholding-articles-impeachment-rushing-impeach/
They eye of the storm is near.