Buddy Hix

People downplaying this are sad individuals, a man should never get physically violent with a woman. Period. If you disagree or feel the need to downplay it, maybe take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are such a POS.

Never

Maybe get fired up before giving up a 14 point lead...

Thank god this game didn’t turn on that penalty. Allen has looked good today. Can he keep it up?

How many times has ST ***** the bed in key situations or st key times?

If Allen is healthy he has to start, and it sounds like he is.

I read what tech expert Jonathan Albright said about the shared video. It was either edited, altered from compression or altered from conversion. No verdict is reached. But I would expect a reasonable person to look at where the alterations occur (only during Acosta’s chop) and the source (Infowars), and then consider why the WH shared that particular version. I think most would conclude that disinformation was the objective

It must be a coincidence that the compression artifacts only introduced themselves during the downward motion of Acosta's arm. Must be. And it must also be a coincidence that the WH shared that video instead of the original.

I think Acosta was wrong to touch the woman. I also think the woman was wrong to try and grab the mic from Acosta. But that is inconsequential to me. When I see the WH sharing altered videos, with what I believe is the intent to mislead the public, I get concerned. What are your feelings on why the WH shared that specific video and are now doubling down that it wasn't altered?

You haven't addressed the Times article quotes I supplied that state that frames were repeated, and only repeated at the specific time of contact between Costa and the intern. You think that the repeated frames were due to the upload?

So you don't want to address this quote from the Times article I included? Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action. A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta’s arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful. Which is the crux of the argument I was making.

I was wrong to say added frames, the frames appear to be repeated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/?utm_term=.d01f9b675e0c Side-by-side comparisons support claims from fact-checkers and experts such as Jonathan Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, who argued that crucial parts of the video appear to have been altered so as to distort the action A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta’s arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful. Can you admit the video was altered?

I don’t need to get caught up in semantics, I’m not a technical expert on the subject matter. I may have used the wrong terms. Do you think, as I do, that the WH shared an altered video in order to make Costa’s actions appear worse than they were?

Tell half the story...it suits you. The video was posted using interlaced frames, rather than C-SPAN’s progressive frames, so cannot be made to match up exactly with the original footage. However, when compared side-by-side, there is a clear moment (Frames 13, 14, 15 in our first clip, where the C-SPAN version is on the left) when the Sanders video halts and the C-SPAN footage does not. The two clips, which were roughly in sync before that moment, are out of sync thereafter.

So the argument shifts to semantics? Was the video altered to paint Costa in a bad light?

You sure like straw men. Constantly defending arguments that haven’t been made. And the link I provided spells out which frames were added. Why did the WH share that Infowars vid instead of letting the videos already circulating speak for themselves?

Where did I defend Costa?

I think the situation was unfortunate and all involved handled it poorly. If the WH doesn’t ban JA the story dies. The issue coming out of this that concerns me is the WH disseminating doctored propaganda, and Trump lying about it. But do explain to me how I’m stupid for viewing the situation that way.

A video analysis was done, frames were added, Trump lied about it. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/video-of-acosta-incident-posted-by-white-house-press-secretary-contains-extra-frames-2018-11-08

Ha, it’s checking in, not voyeurism. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. I don’t partake much because I don’t have the time to vet each side like some do. But in this instance, the WH sharing a doctored Infowars video and then the President lying about it, I have been keeping up to date.

Frames were added and the video was slowed down and sped up. But we’re the ***** morons, got it.

Hahaha, what a great take. After seeing Trump lie today and say the video, that’s still posted on SHS’s twitter feed, isn’t doctored I wanted to see what the Republican echo chamber would say about it. Most of the posts are what I expected, but this one is pure gold. Pure gold, Jerry! And nobody in the echo chamber bats an eye.

No Jesus questions, no answers to any other questions other than McD's usual BS... I want that 10 minutes back.

Nobody is safe from my Monday morning Bills rage!

You’re trolling us...