RE: Anonymous strikes again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

hot4bondage -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 8:05:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

Anonymous is CIA. If they were regular people, they would have been neutralized long ago.

And who cares if Ron Paul has met with or has support from white nationalists? Sound the alarm! White guilt alert! Barack Obama had met with and had support from black nationalists. Who cares?

Ron Paul is not a white nationalist, just as Barack Obama is not a black nationalist. Who cares?


His consistent voting record and honorable personal life aren't as easy to attack as the average politician's. His opposition has six choices:

1. Argue for more government and less freedom.
2. Associate him with his most radical supporters.
3. Redefine non-intervention as isolationism.
4. Aim for his Achilles' heel, abortion rights, which would have to go through congress anyway.
5. Ageism! Political suicide, unless you're older than him.
6. Just ignore him.

Some of these choices depend on who's vote is being targeted, and #6 is nearly played out. The media bias might eventually backfire and work to his advantage.



hot4bondage -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 8:29:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, I just need it explained how a conservo-anarchist-dooflus-convoluto or whatever the fuck he is; (the anarchist part especially) can be shoeboxed into some what  a fucking guy worship when he has sucked on the government tit for 20+ years, having not done a fucking thing of substance.

Or don't I understand the word anarchist, as it is delineated in every dictionary I have ever browsed?

Color me skeptical, and color all heretofore explications of Paul as being ulikely,  improbable, and/or impossible.


When everyone else in Congress tries to get in the history books by sponsoring and co-sponsoring more laws and more bureaucracy, consistently voting NO has substance. Who has a better chance of making history? The 434 members of Congress adding to the pile, or the one who favors repeal?



tazzygirl -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 8:44:19 AM)

I was thinking of that last night.

Anarchist... without a leader, chaos.

Capitalism... involving businesses with a clearly defined leader.

How can it be both?



mnottertail -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 8:44:57 AM)

Well, if thats the case, god bless the little children, we need him right where he is and dont want to move him from that job....



DomKen -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 9:20:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Paul claims to have not written the virulently racist newsletters that were published by him, written in the first person and containing anecdotes appropriate to someone working in rural Texas as an Ob/Gyn. Paul claims to not be a white nationalist/bigot of the worst sort but takes money from Stormfront and holds conference calls with A3P and associated groups. Paul claims to be a libertarian but has frequently introduced laws into Congress intended to take away US citizens civil rights.

Paul's claims and the facts on the ground seem to be at variance. I think the facts speak for themselves.


How many times do we have to go through this? How about we take what you said and apply it to Obama.

Obama claims to not have racist views even though he had a relationship with Reverend Wright and sat in his church for several years. Obama claims to not be a black nationalist/bigot of the worst sort but takes money from the black panthers and works with related members and associated groups. Obama claims to be a progressive but has frequently introduced laws in Congress intended to take away US citizens civil rights.

See how easy this is?

How is a man's minister equivalent to what the man himself wrote?

I can find no evidence of donations to Obama by the Black Panthers, not surprising since that organization cease to exist in 1982.



SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 10:41:50 AM)

quote:


That's ridiculous (not to mention an assertion without an argument). Show me something that Ron Paul wrote that explicitly shows how he is a nationalist.

Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of the Austrian School. He wants to abolish all government and uses the constitution as a subterfuge. How is this even remotely close to nationalism?


I am actually responding to Prov's post with more the intention to clarify. He's probably almost Dead-On about Paul.... Here's the foundations... I read this FAQ intenting to see if it could just simply explain the term Prov was using with a little more meat on the bones and was actually surprised my self how many small echoes of Paul's belief system over the past two decades... and who's really writing this GOOP.
   Shit, I remember back 25 years ago when Paul was first getting mentioned in Politics and HIGH TIMES was the only outfit that would publish his dogma.
Anyway Check out this FAQ on Anarcho-capitalism and decide for yourself.

Where I would differ from Prov would be on his son.

I think Rand is JUST PURELY AN OPPORTUNIST PIECE OF SHIT WHO HAPPENS FOR NOW TO BE SURFING OF THE SWEAT OF THE POOR TEA PARTY DOPES.
   Which, say all you want about the Similarities between Occupy and Tea. THIS distinction of CO-OPTION is the one distinction that makes them of no use to the Occupy movement.



SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 10:50:29 AM)

quote:

His consistent voting record and honorable personal life aren't as easy to attack as the average politician's. His opposition has six choices:
1. Argue for more government and less freedom.
2. Associate him with his most radical supporters.
3. Redefine non-intervention as isolationism.
4. Aim for his Achilles' heel, abortion rights, which would have to go through congress anyway.
5. Ageism! Political suicide, unless you're older than him.
6. Just ignore him.


They've already done 2 and 3 in great detail and I actually think from the mere observation that he has clearly not gone into an mode of contention with Romney even close to Gingrich's that they are safe with choice # 6.

I'm not saying it's the right choice, but it's certainly the one they are making for now.
The whole republican race this year reminds me of the personality of Major Frank Burns from the novel MASH becoming a sub-plot with many characters.




provfivetine -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 11:04:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

Anyway Check out this FAQ on Anarcho-capitalism and decide for yourself.

Where I would differ from Prov would be on his son.

I think Rand is JUST PURELY AN OPPORTUNIST PIECE OF SHIT WHO HAPPENS FOR NOW TO BE SURFING OF THE SWEAT OF THE POOR TEA PARTY DOPES.
   Which, say all you want about the Similarities between Occupy and Tea. THIS distinction of CO-OPTION is the one distinction that makes them of no use to the Occupy movement.



Great Link! Hans-Hermann Hoppe has composed the most destructive arguments against socialism ever written: http://mises.org/etexts/SocCap.pdf

And I actually agree with you about Rand Paul. I'm not really a fan of him either, since he's for some wars and what not.



provfivetine -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 11:32:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I was thinking of that last night.

Anarchist... without a leader, chaos.

Capitalism... involving businesses with a clearly defined leader.

How can it be both?


Anarcho-capitalists have nothing against hierarchies in the private sector. It's the left-anarchists that are against this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
How is a man's minister equivalent to what the man himself wrote?


I don't think Obama should be judged on his past associations, just like Ron Paul. The conservatives who argued in 2008 that Obama was somehow a black nationalist are kidding themselves, much like people who argue that Ron Paul is somehow a white nationalist. It's preposterous.

Obama is an internationalist progressive. He would rather have a mixed-race, one-world collective where we would all hold hands and sing Kumbaya, than a segregated all-black nation. Furthermore, groups that initially supported him, and even declared him Messiah! are no longer doing so.

Again, Ron Paul is an anarchist. This has NOTHING to do with nationalism. He doesn't want to send blacks back to Africa or segregate them, or stop all immigration, or re-institute Jim Crow. C'mon now. Anyone likening him to a white nationalist is just irresponsible, ignorant and dishonest.

White nationalists don't like Ron Pauls immigration position, his free trade positions, (protectionism is part of nationalism), etc. They primarily support him because he wants to take on our aggressive foreign policy and central banking. Ironically, it's the black nationalist that supports Ron Paul! (though Ron Paul's official position is not to return money printing to Congress, but to restore it to the people.)

Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for an end to the war on drugs, which is the main reason for such a high black incarceration rate. I'm sure white nationalists are calling for the same thing. [8|]

Bottom line is that anyone who believe BO or RP are nationalists don't have a clue. I'm bringing up the Obama/Wright/Black Panthers thing for self-referential argumentative purposes, but it seems to be evading a lot of people.



DomKen -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 2:43:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
How is a man's minister equivalent to what the man himself wrote?


I don't think Obama should be judged on his past associations, just like Ron Paul. The conservatives who argued in 2008 that Obama was somehow a black nationalist are kidding themselves, much like people who argue that Ron Paul is somehow a white nationalist. It's preposterous.

But in Paul's case we're discussing things he wrote or at the very least things he allowed to go out under his name by writers who were writing as if they were Paul.



SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 2:52:33 PM)

quote:

conservo-anarchist-dooflus-convoluto


Valid question Ron have you considered that what he might really be is a Conservo-anarcho-foilhead-skinfluto? Have a look at him alongside Larry Craig



kalikshama -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 3:27:50 PM)

quote:

Anonymous is CIA. If they were regular people, they would have been neutralized long ago.


Why would the CIA target GoddessMine? [8|]

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/GoddessMine

Or the Boston PD?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/anonymous-boston-police-occupy-wall-street_n_1252718.html



SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 3:30:33 PM)

quote:

And I actually agree with you about Rand Paul. I'm not really a fan of him either, since he's for some wars and what not.


Well I wasn't really thinking you in terms of being a fan of his at any point anyway. It's sort of been clear you handle the guy with long tongs, but that defining him is an issue.
   I'll go a step further though and say this. I think that while Ron Paul is not provable as a racist. (really more antisemitists)  In the past he's clearly been associated with them to the extent that publications came forth from 'his people'  so to speak... meaning his newsletter needed his editing touch and it either met his approval or he was a SHITTY manager.
   I will also say that the only (3) times I have encountered people at Occupy functions that I would call "racist assholes" they were all 20-something, itching to see the movement go violent or at least physically confrontational, were very definite Paul supporters, and (and this one REALLY pisses me off since they badly dillute the intended message of the symbol) always clutching the Gadsden Flag.
   Our movement has received more fucking bad press as a result of the antics of those assholes. Who generally ditch when they realize their fantasy of leading an army of Occupy/Paul Supporters is just a bad masturbation fantasy.




provfivetine -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 4:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Anonymous is CIA. If they were regular people, they would have been neutralized long ago.


Why would the CIA target GoddessMine? [8|]

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/GoddessMine

Or the Boston PD?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/anonymous-boston-police-occupy-wall-street_n_1252718.html


Not every hack that comes under that name can be attributable to the source. Some random guy in his basement, who has nothing to do with that organization, could hack a website and claim that they're part of Anonymous, which is more of an organic brand then it is a defined set of people. Defacing a police website will make the news and piss off the web site administrators and police, but it's not something that generates serious concern. That hack is probably just an OWS protestor.

If a someone is stealing classified information from government agencies then they will be tracked down immediately and neutralized. One thing that government leaders, of all political sects, agree on is this: they don't want you knowing their dirty little secrets. Take Assange, who was immediately hunted down once he became a threat.

Something like this is highly suspect. Stealing secrets from the Scotland Yard is no joke. They will hunt you down immediately and catch you. If you don't hear of an arrest soon related to this, then I'm weary. Plus hacking into other countries intelligence is hardly something that the CIA hasn't done before.



Trismagistus -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 6:55:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

Anonymous is CIA. If they were regular people, they would have been neutralized long ago.



I would rather not tell you why I personally know this is bullshit, but this is bullshit



SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 6:55:27 PM)

quote:

If a someone is stealing classified information from government agencies then they will be tracked down immediately and neutralized.


Depends what you mean by 'government'.

Ummmm ... not for nothing but this is sort of my profession. Not a hacker bit rather very widely experienced with Internetworking Protocols. And I think from everything I have gathered from articles, reflections made by the principal and secondary victims in professional forums, email, and even a few face to face conversations, that there are at least three different things going on.

1) They are using principals of distributed computing as well as getting people to do willful overt shirt to tax various intranets (oldies but goodies? That still linger with 01-02ish security technology and positioning).

2)You have experienced 'opportunists' who may have no more of a connection than throwing each other communications in netslang at some BBS where people are mostly there to do something mundane (identification of the next 'competition'). Something big and weak gets brought and these guy do whatever during the recovery process and they get in. THERE ARE STILL COMPANIES AND AGENCIES WHO HONOR TELNET SESSIONS SOMEWHERE ON THEIR WAN.... just in case the cool shit goes down and they're like LAZY maybe. Know this... during all those layoffs A LOT of  $50k NetGeneral<tm> Sniffers went missing.

3)The Crown jewel of all these so-called informational shockers though? It's HANDS ON. "I'm an active duty marine with access to files and have an SD chip in my wallet when I leave work every day." "My uncle got me a contracting job with his IT firm and they service the computers for XCity PD and well Lookee Here!". Lots and lots of what we used to call field hacking back in the days when you could go play Mark Spitz in an Olympic sized dumpster... Now though, the folks striking real gold are the guys who for whatever reason, hane lande3d a job inside or adjacent to the goods.







SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 7:13:03 PM)

quote:

Why would the CIA target GoddessMine?

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/GoddessMine


Yeah, no Ummm I'm gonna go with 'jilted piggie' playing into the hands of 'anonymous'  on that one.[:D]


quote:

Or the Boston PD?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/anonymous-boston-police-occupy-wall-street_n_1252718.html


ANCIENT INFRASTRUCTURE, GUMBA  GOOD OLD BOY IN BLUE IT CONTRACTS, HOSTED WEBPAGE, Pick your mistake. And it wasn't actually the Police Dept that was hacked. It was the BPDNews.com website. And they are SO fucking scared now, they simply redirect you to a Facebook Page cause they are terrified of being that publicly embarrassed ever again.




SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 7:15:11 PM)

quote:

That hack is probably just an OWS protestor.


Shame on you! How could you think suck a thing... Next thing you'll be telling me is there really is a Guido Fawkes.[:D]



SternSkipper -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 7:17:09 PM)

quote:


I would rather not tell you why I personally know this is bullshit, but this is bullshit


Well there probably weren't any CIA guys trying to play then anyway.




PeonForHer -> RE: Anonymous strikes again (2/3/2012 7:18:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trismagistus


quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

Anonymous is CIA. If they were regular people, they would have been neutralized long ago.



I would rather not tell you why I personally know this is bullshit, but this is bullshit


I don't *know* it's bullshit, but I'm pretty confident that it is. The mighty law enforcement agencies of the world, like their military counterparts, simply aren't in control of the Internet. We all need to face it: those dictatorial oppressors (aka spotty, sweaty youths who should be at school) are more than a match for those great guardians of our freedom, guarantors of our liberties and enemies of all state control and oppression, the FBI and Scotland Yard.

Hang on, I'm not sure if I've got that right . . . . My bed time, I think. :-(





Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875