Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Take Aim at Republicans
An anonymous reader writes "Wired reports-- Online protests targeting GOP websites could turn out to be more than symbolic during this month's Republican National Convention, possibly blocking a critical communications tool for the party... "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in," said CrimethInc, a member of the so-called Black Hat Hackers Bloc. It's one of several groups planning to distribute software tools to reload Republican sites over and over again."
Wouldn't eliminating the Republican's "free speech" on the web via DDOS attacks basically amount to cyber-terrorism?
...remember how, in front of the UN in the run-up to the Iraq war, a couple of trucks in the middle of the desert were "mobile bio weapon research/development platforms"? (Exactly those that, like all the weapons of mass distruction, can't be found now)...
Hint! Hint! You wouldn't want Bush to go for more governmental control of the Internet in order to fight all kinds of cyber-terrorism, wouldn't you?
And - if this really hits the Republicans, it won't be long before Bush's spin-doctors claim the whole idea was, in fact, initiated by Al Qaeda members....
Republicans = RICH
Rich = BIG POWERFUL SERVERS with LOTS OF BANDWIDTH!
Apologies, but in my opinion massive page reloading to deny service is hardly "hacking". It's not even "cracking". What about reloading a page is innovative, clever, or technical?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"tolerance" and "open-mindedness"
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Posting links to the GOP websites on /.
They don't like the Bush Regime, and this is there way of protesting (illegaly), what is there not to get?
Genius.... Targetting Republican websites... someone want to tell these hackers that it's the Republicans that have been pushing mandatory sentencing guidelines in federal, pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Yeah because all hackers are democrats and leftists. RIGHT. Maybe the political slant of off the hook has confused a lot of script kiddi's but I'm sure there are hackers from both sides of the spectrum.
...an Ask Slashdot question about how to turn a perfectly happy web server into a pile of molten rubble?
Right! Which is why they'd try to stifle political discussion! Oh wait. What?
Heh, I've seen plenty of survival-of-the-fittest libertarian-type IT gurus.
So I'm guessing the Republicans wont be able to count on the hacker vote this year?
JJ
I blog, they blog, do you
One group's voices are being silenced because another group disagrees with them. Now that's respect for freedom of speech!
sig: sauer
I'd better hear the same hue and cry in here as if a group of right-wing extremists were gleefully planning to shut down the DNC, or Nader, or any other such group.
That's just plain wrong. If you don't like someone, then debate them - don't try to shut them up.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Most things that the republicans have to say make me dislike them even more.
Please don't hide their idiocy by DDOSing their servers. We want to let them spread the news of their incompetent lunacy as far and wide as possible.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Most hackers tend to lean towards Libertarianism, or even Anarchism in some extreme cases. That means they don't support Democrats either.
This is quite possibly the most rediculous way of expressing your disagreement with someone, ever.
Preventing them from saying what they are allowed to say by blasting them off the internet, rather than engaging in proper debate?
*slaps forehead*
aterr - an open source threaded discussion board.
...who agrees with, or supports, this in any way, is a fucking hypocrite.
....I believe they have a right to speak. I believe that we should listen to everyone's ideas. I believe blocking them will only serve to infuriate people which will only help them in November.
No ifs, ands or buts. Denying others their free speech rights via DDOS - these guys are making all of us and our anti DRM, "info wants to be free", OSS support look like fools. I hope the FBI throws every one of them in jail.
BC
... Personally, while I'm going to probably be voting the same way as these hackers come election day, I don't think this is at all the right way to go about things. If you disagree with someone or some groups actions/beliefs etc, the correct way to beat them is through logic, presenting better arguments, getting a higher listing on google... what these people are doing is much closer to censorship. "We disagree with these people so we aren't going to let them speak" It's also a mistake to believe that every person that's going there is going to be convinced. I know that I have in the past gone to a political candidates website and after reading their beliefs found that I don't match up as closely to them as I previously thought... To me this is just a bunch of script kiddies trying to get attention, and going at something with as little thought as they're used to giving to their actions.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
Honestly, though...not to troll, but what are we accomplishing here? As Democrats, or Bush-opponents or whatever, what do they expect to gain? It just seems desperate to need to gag a website to self-serve your own agenda. Why not post a different site with information on why NOT to vote Republican if thats what you believe? Too easy and civil I guess?
Freedom of speech is a Republican ideal? Because that's what these skript kiddies seem to be against here. Just because you don't agree with someone's viewpoint doesn't give you the right to impede their ability to present it.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
Fairness?
I would say Reps are much more geared towards fairness
than dems.
Just a second... How is "reloading a page" illegal?
Unless they would intend to break into their servers, this doesn't seem illegal...
Unethical, yes, but not illegal... Is it?
I see massive spin by the Bush camp. Just like there is the conspiracy theorist in me who thinks the Bush camp is hoping for a terrorist event (or the capture of Bin Landen the week before the election)(Which makes you think.. does the Bush camp already have Bin Laden, and they are just holding him quietly until it's closer to the election?) Anywho.. .The terrorist event would (in their eyes) unite the nation behind the leader again. This makes me worried. Put that into prespective with this website DDOSing and then you have think that they will use this as an example of people they are fighting and how they are trying to hinder free speech, and the great nations form of polictal will. They will turn it as a favaorable thing for themselves... and any thing that helps Bush makes me sick :(
Seconded. If one believes that Party X is wrong, wouldn't one wish for as many as possible to be able to view Party X's site and see the wrongness for themselves? This action just reflects discredit on the attackers, who come off as being people who want to hide their *own* wrongness.
Please remember, being anti-Bush does not make one a Democrat, and let's not let the actions of a few unsavory individuals tarnish the reputation of everyone who wants Bush out of office.
This is just like when the media focused on the SCO/spam worms and claimed that linux evangelists were out to destroy the company.
You're right.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be over here with my eyepatch, petting my Persian cat and building my GOP approved super death beam to hold all of the world governments hostage to further the shadow government which really pulls all the strings.
Then I will tell John Kerry all my secret plans right before I chop him in half with a laser.
Mwhahahaaha
If you want to make the Republican National Committee spend money needlessly, and deplete their supply of propaganda, just order one of their propaganda DVDs HERE
eat shiat and bark at the moon
That statement, right there, is why the two groups can't get along. To Conservatives, "liberal and fair" is an oxymoron, but to Liberals, it makes perfect sense. It's like arguing about whether the GPL or BSD license is "more free". Stating one position as unarguable fact only marks you as a partisan, and not insightful.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Hopefully the Black Hat Hackers Bloc won't have used the same server to launch the DOS attack as is hosting their website...
Have you seen my stapler?
Meanwhile, these "hacktivist" morons manage to be complete failures on both political and technical counts. Remember a few years ago when they tried to DDOS the World Bank and an admin there bounced their packets and flooded them off, instead? How much of a loser do you need to be to get 0wn3d by the World Bank?
And DOSing the Republican website affects the convention how? I suppose doing anything more sophisticated than a page reloading script is beyond them...
This is going to be widely reported if this "acutally" happens and it is just going to be a detrament to the republican opponents. Because this does look like political terrorism, and who will they associate with this. I will tell you who the Democratic Party, and the DNC and Kerry will come out looking like terrorist that can't actually win on the issues. Instead they have to resort to gorrilla war-fare inorder to win, just like many of the dictatorships around the world. (That last part was just a statement to prove a point I don't actually think these people are associated with Kerry or the DNC, but it is going to be very bad for Kerry in the election if this actually does happen.)
Normally when the act of airing one's opinions is considered undesirable that only means that the opposition is weak in principle. Go ask a Nazi or a Red.
Basically the 'hackers' attacking the GOP seem to be of the opinion that the GOP sucks but Kerry doesn't stand a chance of winning based on his own merits versus those of GWB. Kinda sad when you have no faith in your own convictions.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Why not use the system and vote to make yourself heard? Not be a bunch of hypcrite who bitch, and try to silence the dissenting opinon. Use the power you have. If you don't like how things are run in America, then change them. You have to power, through the Democracy. - ZT
Wouldn't eliminating the Republican's "free speech" on the web via DDOS attacks basically amount to cyber-terrorism?
Of course, anything to have a story with the word terrorism in it.
From the article: But some activists are condemning the planned attacks, saying they violate the principles of free speech that protesters rely on for their demonstrations.
The free speech zones might be good enough for those people but I assume the hackers want Bush to be in the front seat when he sees what they hate about him.
I disagree with the tactics myself as they are nothing more than an annoyance and fodder for Bush's team to say "look! we have terrorists right here trying to end your freedoms!"
Ok this seems really really childish. In your country(I'm canadain) even if you don't like them or there view points. They do have the right to say what they are going to say. And come on by DoSing their website, just how childish are you. I think there are better was to go about it. This is just stupid!! next story. O btw were can I dl the "tool" ;)
Sounds like a bunch of '1337 haX0rs to me. Or a bunch of 14 year olds in someone's attic. Seriously, would a real hacker a) reveal his plans, or b) draw attention to himself using 5kr1pt k1dd13s to DDOS a Republican website? The real hackers are the ones who, right now, are stealing your credit card number, and turning poorly maintained servers into warez servers.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
"They think we're just a bunch of anarchistic, anti free speech, long hair freaks, who have nothing good to say. They think that we can't win on the merits of our own platform. They think that all we're interested in is making a scene, rather than coming up with constructive, workable ideas.
Let's prove it to 'em!"
This skill set isn't very rarified so chances are all the teams have it.
... Cowboy Neil.
Kind of like poison gas in a war. Why be the first to get this started. During the 2000 fiasco there were online polls that were being stuffed. yawn
If you want to fight the current regeme, go to Flordia and help the elderly black people get past the inevitable police cordons.
Or if you have super skills hack Diebold and give all Ohio's votes to 'Nobody' or uh
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
The question is just, whether that will be in a couple of months, or in 4 years and a couple of months...
While I hope his re-election campaign will fail (badly), I am not convinced it will.
All the guy needs to do is to occasionally raise (and then silently drop) terror alert levels again to create enough fear in the population to go for his kind of hard-liner politics...
Fairness!? Bullshit!
In their group-think it's okay to deny the rights of others while demanding those rights for themselves.
I guess their message should be:
"Authoritarianism for Freedom!"
LOL!!!
wow, could you be any more indoctrinated or what?
Yeah, those evil republicans! I know, lets just stop taking half measures and just commit random acts of violence against them... yeah, i mean, they aren't even human right? So it won't matter... yeah, next republican you see, bash her/him over the head with a brick. They have it coming to them, subhumans that they are.
You are a liberal, its your duty! To stand up against the inhuman unfairness of a republican.
This little "stunt" is about as pathetic as anything I've ever heard of... and is just a glowing indication of the inability of the left to engage in the political process in any meaningful way.
And yes, you with the mod points, sucked into the slashbot group-think, I fully expect you to mod this down as troll, flamebait... or wait... use the ULTIMATE cop-out... overrated!
sad robot making broken music
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
help yourself!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
If memory serves, this was the asshat who got escorted out of a panel he was giving at Defcon once his talk started to descend into advocating violent action against the RNC.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Once again the 'noble' hacker is committing crime - my hero!!!
Intentions aside, people like these need to be removed from society, for they are no better than the ill they wish to remove.
If you want to change a wrong, campaign (marketing) for the change, and VOTE!! Don't commit crimes and then say it was all in the name of justice.
This is like the 'peace' protestors that assault the police or destroy other's property, or the abortion activist murdering a doctor or pro-choicer.
It's time to start skimming the gene pool...
Power struggles make the power between the players flip and flop for hundreds of reasons. If hackers do vandalism when the power flops back over to the ones that were hit then they'll put measures in place that ruin it for the rest of us.
Ever since Al Gore created the internet, 31337 h4x0rs every where have hated the GOP.
...tinfoil bodysuit.
Also:
The intelligence gathering capabilities of:
- The US, - The UN, - Most of Europe, including the UK, France, and Germany; - Russia; - Some of Iraq's neighbors; - Iraq and Saddam Hussein himself;
believed Iraq to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD.
This is because:
- The US had long tracked Iraq's possession of WMD, considering we provided them with much of that capability (Let's take another brief tangential stroll down the lane of liberal hypocrisy: that the US once supported Saddam against Iran, and provided Iraq with some of its WMD capabilities is something often bandied about. Classically, it removes accountability for any actions in the intermediary, similar to blaming society wholly for the ills of an inner city youth, or a gun manufacturer for the actions of a criminal with a gun. Hypocritically, it ignores the position held by many in this same camp when Madison's own Progressive Magazine published The Secrets of the H-Bomb some 25 years ago, arguing vehemently [with a different agenda, of course] that the secrets of such weapons cannot and should not be kept by the Big Bad Government, because anyone who wanted to figure them out ultimately would anyway. And, indeed, that the blame would rest with the people who used them inappropriately, not the science behind them. Now, apparently, the US is directly to blame for Iraq having WMD. [Even though it didn't have any WMD...] See why it's difficult to keep up?)
- The UN had closely tracked Iraq's WMD capability for over a decade
- As a matter of course, most of Europe had done the same
- When Hussein accused UN weapons inspectors of being US spies in 1998, at which point the UN pulled the inspectors due to lack of effectiveness, Iraq was known by the UN to be in possession of significant quantities of WMD (e.g., amounts in the thousands of tons). Are we to believe that after all UN oversight was gone, that Iraq secretly and silently destroyed ALL of its WMD capability, without the knowledge of Hussein himself - who believed he was INCREASING his investment in WMD - and all without any records or evidence of such destruction? There are over 740 tons of Sarin alone unaccounted for. 740 tons out of a known 920 tons. Eighty percent. Where is it? (Well, it's in the Sudan, Libya, Syria, who knows?)
- This, of course, ignores the fact that Iraq was egregiously in violation, numerous times, of several binding UNSEC resolutions; resolutions which member nations are required, obligated, and compelled to enforce by the UN charter. The type of enforcement, of course, is up for debate; however, it's clear that the previous course of action was not only not working, it had gotten worse, and ultimately utterly failed. While it also, according to the left, was responsible for over half a million Iraqi deaths.
Let's also not forget the *650,000 tons* (yes, you read that right) of non-WMD UN-banned weapons found by coalition forces in Iraq. 650,000 tons, and counting.
Want to follow the money?
Ok, let's follow it.
During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries. Why have 9/11 and "Iraq" been discussed in the same context? Not because, as some liberals mindlessly drone that Bush and his "cronies" wanted to "fool" the American people into thinking that Iraq
Suppression of information is the last gasp of the side in trouble.
Oh, and by the way, remember this when you hear about how Republicans are facists and the Democrats are all about free-speech. What a load of crap.
> nd other words that begin with the letter t!
'tard?
Way to subvert democracy.
Congratulations on stifling free speech.
Kudos on the hypocrisy.
I've seen the increasing drumbeat of anti-GOP protestors everywhere, clearly building towards a childish orgy of vandalism and street violence. It is monumentally naive.
The GOP occupation of NYC is not just designed to exploit 9/11. It is a careful and deliberate attempt to provoke protest. Preferably large, frightening, unruly protest. The more masturbatory rage they can stir up in the city, the louder they'll be laughing on their way back to the white house.
This election will be won with moderates and swing voters. Those are people like your parents. They will not identify with "CrimethInc" and "scruffy, unattractive" street protestors. They will see this event covered from inside the convention looking out.
Every act of violence, provocation, and unruly or disorderly behavior will scare those moderates right into the GOP's arms. Whether it be showing up on 6th Ave. with a mask and a shield, or DDOS'ing a GOP website, this kind of bad conduct is exactly what Republican strategists urgently want. And it will hand them the election on a silver platter.
Don't be a goddamn lemming. Save your "violence" for the voting booth!
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Yeah, if your definition of fairness means giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest of them. And letting companies get away with poisoning the environment without penalty either at the time or later down the line. And cutting soldiers pay and veterans benefits right when you're sending them out to war. And reducing public schools to the level where they practically have to throw poor students out of class or else risk losing desperately needed funds because they aren't meeting set targets.
Oh yeah, Republicans are all about fairness.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I hope they provide a Canadian download mirror.
(Exactly those that, like all the weapons of mass distruction, can't be found now)
As of this morning, Fox news is speculating that they were driven to Syria, based on the evidence that Hussein sent his "most trusted government branch" to control the border crossings with Syria.
In fact, Fox was bringing on experts who said it was likely that all the WMDs were shipped to Syria shortly before the war.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
This doesn't seem any worse than when people in California jammed up the streets in protest of the war not so long ago.
They made themselves heard by basically pissing off a bunch of motorists just trying to get home for the evening.
At least this "protest" won't heavily interfere with the day-to-day lives of the average citizen.
Think GOP's going to subscribe to some Click for Cash program...
"linux" is a very common word and was not included in your search.
From the so-called defenders of 'tolorance' and Free speech comes the wacky left to squash the voices of others.
Its only free-speech if its liberal free speech.
Kinna reminds me of UNFIT FOR COMMAND.
Rather than addressing the points in the book, the Kerry camp attacks the 'messenger' as well as pressuring TV station not to run the Swifties ads against Kerry.
(He's already been thoughly nailed on the Christmas in Cambodia 'story' that was 'seared into his brain'...)
Like I've always said, Never let the facts get in the way of the liberals...
I dont live and die by Karma.
I live in reality
So..All you liberals...MOD AWAY!
It will make you feel good mod'ing down an conservative...
(Gee..this post should net me a -37 !!!)
That these idiots just make everyone else look bad? Congrats, you've just given Asscroft all the ammo he needs to take over all comminucations so asshats like you can't fuck it up for the rest.
Next time, set yourself on fire in public, it will make a better impact.
And for the record, I'm a registered Dem.
If the intent is to deny access to other people, then it is a denial of service and is illegal.
spout some more of the bs liberal party line why don't you?
do you actually believe what you posted? because if you do, it's a sad sad commentary on you
...stupidity.
Wasn't this an idea that got some idiot kid kicked out of a panel at DefCon? For the life of me I can't find the story, but goes like this:
Panel on security at this year's DefCon. Very young attendee (on a panel) starts yelling about taking down the Republican sites, causing havok, etc. --- he doesn't seem to have any real political views other than to cause ruckus. He gets escorted out and generally booed by DefCon attendees.
If anything, I would suggest any journalism on this include both that crowd's reaction and this site's reaction, that is to say, it's a bad idea.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
In U.S. history during the civil rights movement, thousands if not millions marched on Washington DC. What is the equivalent over the internet? If you think that some site is wrong in some way, how do you get your message out to them like a march in Washington DC would? I am saying there may be some kind of legitimacy if users voluntarilly downloaded 'flooding' software and used it against the sites that they think their message is wrong.
Again, I think bringing down a site is wrong, and denial of service attacks are wrong, but I can see the other sides point in the article.
Nuttles
Saved By Grace
Arent' these Reloading apps similar to DOS apps? Written with the purpose of bringing websites down??
Aren't using DOS apps to bring a webserver down illegal?
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. If someone wants to impact the upcoming election, they should go door to door convincing people locally to vote for Kerry (or Nader), contribute to campaigns or volunteer to actually work with other human beings in a campaign office. Slamming a web site (which is just plain silly anyway, and not "hacking") amounts to childs play that wouldn't impact anything in the scheme of things, but is more akin to childish vandalism.
And not all "hackers" are anti-Bush btw.
In which reality were weapons of mass destrcution found? The Fox News dimension? Even Bush has given up on this and started talking invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein might have the capability to build WMD.
Traitor?
Reloading a page isn't illegal.
Bogging a site down due to page loads isn't illegal. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion because Slashdot wouldn't exist...
Now, if they try to crack into the servers and, for example, download the donor databases and start using those credit card numbers to purchase insanely large amounts of Kraft marshmallows to throw at Bush on the campaign trail, then that would be illegal (except for the part about purchasing marshmallows... if they used their own money, that is).
Conspiracy to commit distributed Denial of Service attacks probably falls under something illegal. Doesn't matter whether reloading the page itself is illegal.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The fact that it's illegal, immature, and not at all conducive to proper political discussion is why people don't understand why anyone would think this is a good idea. Of course, the very fact that you used the word "regime" indicates to me that you are probably too far divorced from fairness and thinking for yourself to understand this.
Here's an anecdote: this is roughly akin to nailing two-by-fours across every door and window in my house so that you can prevent me from coming out and using my freedom of speech because you don't like the views I espouse. If you disagree with what I say, the appropriate response is to write, speak, and make your views known. It is not to simply silence the opposition by preventing them from being heard.
The US doesn't have a big problem with pro-neo-Nazi sentiment in our population. Why? It's not because we ban them from speaking or promoting their views, like in Germany. It's because every time they do speak, they get so thoroughly discredited by the opposition that everyone simply ignores them.
I would urge all people who do not agree with the White House to _write_ them, whether it's by email or snail mail. Call them, even! But I would urge everyone, both in America and elsewhere, to NOT participate in a childish act like DDOS'ing the RNC's website. The politics in this country are awful enough without resorting to a new low.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I think you have Republicans confused with neocon/theocons. Real Republicans are all about individual rights. Look it up. Some of us Republicans are a bit annoyed with the hijacking of the party, though I am not about to become a Democrat over it.
Now it is...
Isn't it funny, not ha-ha, how some of those who wrap themselves in the First Amendment, and who claim to be the most open minded and tolerant, are the ones who would attack a group whose political affiliation is different?
Tolerance n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
Tolerance, Politically Correct n. The capacity to slander, libel, ridicule, belittle, attack, or otherwise marginalize anyone who adheres to moral, religious, or political views which are not Politically Correct. See also: hypocrisy
Moderated +5, mindless, unsupported, anti-Republican/conservative bullshit, of course. Hint hint, maybe you're really a Republican operative cleverly crafted to make Slashdot liberals seem like paranoid retards!
Or maybe you and the hackers are just what they appear to be. No matter, free speech is only for the liberal. Carry on, brave soldier of disinformation!
If things were fair the wealthy would be would be paying the same amount of taxes that everyone else does.
I am not wealthy but the income tax is the farthest thing from a fair tax in America.
And please don't even bring up public schools(i taught in one),
trust me money is NOT the problem.
As for companies not being fined please cite examples.
The military? dems(not all) are known to despise the military.
If I was a Republican running on a platform that basically says "The world is going nutz, give us authority to kill ALL our many enemies", I'd be not only hiring zcript kiddies to hack my own websites, I'd be planning terrorist attacks on my own country, and maybe a botched assassination attempt of myself while I'm at it -- Reagan's shooting bumped his popularity into the high 90's for a while.
It's a tough race, you need any advantage you can get, and I'm SURE the GOP-friendly CIA has already suggested this to Bush. And Bush said okay.
Just imagine all the money they are making for the Republicans from google ads by reloading their web page continuously.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
they might make a big dent. Besides, maybe some of the /.ers might get...ummm....creative!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
This is just pathetic. People who complain about the policies of the GOP being eroding rights of free speech etc. turn around and try to deny the right of free speech to others.
In the article it quotes losersXXXXXXhackers as advocating breaking into RNC computers and networks to steal and destroy information.Gee, isn't that what brought Nixon down. Only back then they had to physically break into the DNC offices. Watergate anyone?
will take this opportunity to show that this is a dastardly plot by Dick Chaney and Haliburton to try and discredit the free-speech loving Democrats.
Where 100million tinfoil hat script kiddies can see it and get ready for the big day.
The story IS obviously tech oriented (much more so than F 9/11), but is this the necesarily moral thing to do? I know Taco dislikes bush, but this is enabeling script kiddies to do damage to an electoral canidate in an ilegal way.
Besides all you would have to do to shut down the GOP website would be to link it from the front page with the phrase "Microsoft buys up SCO". What nerds survive the initial heart attack will then
I would rather be ashes than dust!
These guys are going to give Hackers a bad name...
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Liberals prove themselves equally stupid and as intolerant of dissent as conservatives. Maybe Americans really do get the government we deserve.
Some might say that this is a last resort for protestors since protesting is basically illegal now unless your fenced in to a free speech zone where no one sees, hears or cares about you.
....the hackers are letting them know in advance so they can prep their machines. Sheesh.
-Valiss
So, this was all for an 'attempted bomb'? Man, that 'attempted bomb' might have really caused some serious problems, huh? I'm sure glad we're putting our sons and daughters in danger and getting killed 'cause of an 'attempted bomb'. Who knows? The 'attempted bomb' may have left the country of origin and managed to get into a neighboring country where there may have been an attempted explosion.
One, the march was to get the GOVERNMENT's attention. These are not government websites.
Two, the march was NOT ILLEGAL. Denial of service attacks are.
Three, it was their only avenue to get their message out to so many people. On the internet, anyone can set up their own website to get their message out.
No matter whether your're a Democrat or Republican,trying to inturrupt the Democratic Process becuase you don't agree with your opponent is just plain WRONG
1) It shows a lack of faith in the strength of one's point of view, since valid arguments can stand well enough on their own merits.
2) It serves the opponent by allowing them to claim the moral high ground
3) It debases the cause you beleive in by allowing your opponents to show how many zealots exist on "your" side.
4) It hampers/impairs free speech, which is the FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY
5) It reduces the ability have a tone of civility in debate as a whole (and don't get me started on who was rude first, that cry-baby crap doesnt show responsible adult behavior - change begins with ME - and you.)
Set a positive exmaple. Denounce this irresponsible behavior. If you know someone who is doing this or supports it, change their mind.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Illegal in terms of restricting free speech..hmm... maybe?
Actually, that's probably not an anecdote, so forgive me... revised the post a couple times before hitting the submit button.
/.'ers would do well to stay away from all of this, in particular. Even if Kerry wins, the citizens of the US of A are not going to be in the "caring to reconcile mood" if there's wide-spread perception that Europe spent lots of time playing inane games with our politics. Don't make a bad situation worse, even if you think the US is responsible in the first place.
Additionally, I'd also like to point out that European
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Last I heard, a couple of old, rusted shells were found. But even Fox isn't trumpeting the news...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
...Are you a member of any group or organization that advocates or practices acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights...
Seconded?
/.
Maybe you missed the 10 millionth post on
This is a cut and paste job that is likely to become the new "I for one welcome our new overlords" joke on here.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
You're right. When he passes the torch to another Republican in 4.5 years, I'm sure he won't think twice about the smelly hippies who brought down his website for a few hours during his reelection to stifle free speech.
The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology.
Listening to Bush speak and extracting information - he supports pre-emptive war, he doesn't support scientific research on most stemcells, his education and domestic policy are faltering - this type of information is what should drive the left to vote for another candidate. The "he's wrong before I've even heard his views" stance is the *worst* way to go about creating a democracy, in fact, it's the best way to silence one.
Democracy is dependant on everyone getting the facts. Interpretations of the facts are tricky, but creating your own set of facts is downright wrong. Silencing speech, in any way, is the first step towards the ideological mess that the "faith-based" Republican party finds themselves in right now: creating facts to fit beliefs about misguided assumptions.
"If you disagree with someone or some group's actions/beliefs"... first requires that you listen to that group's actions or beliefs. I hope - *hope* - that we can get this message across.
I suppose the Republican spin on a massive surge in the number of page loads will be that their websites have gained incredible popularity.
In an attempt to close down one political party's ability to get the word out, one political party and its President were thrown out of office by the majority of Americans who did not like the idea that free speech and freedom of the press ought to be limited.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
best. post. ever.
Why is it flamebait? Because you don't want to hear the truth, Europe? Thought so.
Am I the only one thinking actions like these are plain stupid ?
Mentailly challenged people in this business, beeing it taking
down Repubican websites DOSing SCO, stealing Halflife-2 code,
ought to take a good look at themselves as well as:
this,this and this
Plus every time some genius comes along and commits a crime in the name of a progressive cause, we have to deal with a dozen media pundits saying, "See? Look what Liberals will do. Will Kerry supporters stop at nothing? Oh, these immoral people."
Then we have to deal with average people joining the Republican party just because it offers a sane choice compared to the nutjob left wingers. Hell, even crazies like Anne Coulter seem sane compared to hacker groups actively working to break the law in the name of democracy.
For years I was afraid to even admit I was a liberal. Not because I was embarrassed to care about progressive goals, but because I had to deal with being associated with misguided wierdos like these. I wish there was a t-shirt..."I'm against Bush but I don't want to kill him or take down his server or rage about how he's a filthy liar. I just want people not to vote for him because he hasn't done a very good job."
Hey freaks: now you're ju
This is one of the sickest and most disgusting things I have read in a while. I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I've voted both Liberterian and Republican in the past, and rarely Democratic. I grew up in an Eastern European country (Romania); my political viewpoint has been heavily influenced by my memories of the past.
I am just disgusted that a group of 12 year old children, self-proclaimed "defenders of freedom", would even think about doing this; are they not receiving any education from their parents these days? This is not only against any moral standards, it's outright against everything this country stands for - that is, if it still stands for anything. So now I can't share my viewpoint anymore because some immature person might not like what I have to say and DOS me? Come to my house and kill me? So much for upholding those great American values of "Democracy".
This story doesn't even merit making the Slashdot front page. I was under the impression that all of us here (even if we disagree with the policy of the current presidency) are smart and intelligent enough not support such actions.
I am disgusted by you CmdrTaco. This "news" is not even worthy of trash. "Hackers"? I "hacked"; and I sure as hell do not remember DOSing people because their viewpoints were not my own. I grew up in a country where that was case; and no, there you wouldn't get DOS'd for sharing a non-acceptable viewpoint. You'd get picked up by the secret police, beaten, totured, and maybe make it back to your family and freedom. No, when I was "hacking", I was educating myself - reading up on as much as I could computer related, I wrote my own shell code, did assembly on 4 processors, wrote C/C++/JAVA/... and a lot of other languages, worked on three emulators, and loved taking things apart, seeing how they worked, learning something new, getting some kind of new information - and all of this before I ever turned 18. Do NOT associate the actions of these immature people with hacking. It's revolting.
Shame on you CmdrTaco.
Marius
Yes, "some people say" as such. What's funny is using the words "fact" and "Fox (News)" in the same sentance without some type of negation.....
Since when does a shell constitute "weapons"?
Does this officially constitute a vast left wing conspiracy? Is it "mean spirited" ?
It sure as hell is anti-constitutional, illegal and immoral. But that never stopped anyone from fighting "bad" people like Bush, right?
These people believe they are fighting a battle of good versus evil. They are "good," therefore anything they do is OK. Bush is "evil" so they can justify anything they do to stop him.
Conservatives believe they are fighting a battle of right versus wrong. They don't hate liberals, they just consider them "wrong". It's hard to have a debate with someone who believes that facts are irrelevant.
Liberal ideas always SOUND good... some of the nicest people I know are earthy-crunchy liberals. But people who believe in the power of crystals and tarot are "wrong." I don't want them taking my tax money to spend on what they consider a "good" cause.
Remember, for every problem there is a simple answer... which is wrong.
Bigger government is NEVER the answer.
this sig has been rated E for Everyone.
While many people have pointed out that hackers may be shooting themselves in the foot and inviting retaliation by attacking the GOP, I see this somewhat differently. The GOP has been attacking us for a long time now. They've been attacking our basic freedoms and rights, they've been attacking other countries on whims, and they've been attacking the very moral fiber of the world. What's wrong with a little civil disobedience to strike back? While I am not in favor of stifling their free speech or actually causing damage, I am wholly in favor of making their lives more difficult, because that's exactly what they've done to me, and all of you, too, whether you want to admit it or not. While this is definitely not the method that our founding fathers held in mind in the formative years of our country, it is in keeping with the same ideals. In the face of tyranny, we must assert our rights, however possible, and make every attempt to bring about justice and liberty, two words that the GOP seems to have forgotten.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
This is strictly amateur hour. For the hard core virtual theft you need to turn to the professional theives in Congress.
Your mistake?
Trash.
Leave that out and your point is in much better standing.
But taking down a campaign website would nevertheless remove a critical tool for reaching the public -- and likely generate a slew of stories in the mainstream media about the crash.
As well as a slew of stories about "the other side's" supporters are childish criminals prepared to stifle others' free speech to prevent dissenting opinions being disseminated. Plus a slew of speeches from 'indignant, embattled' Republicans about how they will continue to campaign, despite the illegal attacks from the other side.
Yeah, that'll really hurt the Republican cause.
I for one welcome our "I don't get it" overlords.
How do you defeat the modern Republican party? Not by shouting them down; if you shout them down, their ideals and agenda remain obscured. Let them talk themselves out of office. Let Cheney make stupid remarks about "sensitivity" so we can juxtapose them with the President's sensible remarks on the same subject. Let the President speak, so everyone can hear that he can't even figure out basic subject/verb agreement in a sentence. Let Ashcroft speak, so folks can see just how scarily totalitarian some of his ideas are. Let Rumsfeld speak, so everyone can hear just how egomaniacal and lacking in honest awareness of his own failings he really is. The best enemy of the US Republican Party is its own leadership ... let them speak.
From the ultra-conservative MSNBC
BBC
That's the episode he's referring to. Surprised that someone who obviously gets their news from the "better" news sources wouldn't have seen this.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
These guys have no clue.
I suppose this is a concept that is hardly difficult for a thinking person to unearth, but as no one above my threshold has yet commented upon it, I'll take the soapbox.
This sort of hacktivism is nothing more then the digital analogue of a violent protest. While I most certainly do not agree with the platform and politics of the GOP, I believe that it is these hackers that pose a greater danger to my 'free speech.' While the Republicans have paid to host a web site and run a server in order to communicate their vision to the world, this wonderful group of people has decided not to fight back with cogent argumentation and stunning logic, but rather with a wildly underwhelming attempt to flood the server.
This sort of free campaign fodder offered to the Republicans can only harm Kerry's cause (though he is no prize pig himself...). Just wait for the War on Terrorism to go electronic: I can't wait for a digital reprisal of Ari Fleisher's 2001 declaration that "People have to watch what they say and watch what they do."
It's time people began to think. I honestly believe that a logical policy analysis reveals the truth. Left to themselves, people reading campaign literature from either side should be able to discern the better candidate. Even card-carrying GOP members that plan to vote a straight ticket deserve to learn what their party stands for and believes.
Now flip the coin. Suppose it were Republicans DDOS'ing progressive web sites such as Salon.com, Kuro5hin, or (heaven forbid) Slashdot. Shouldn't we all have the right to publish in peace? Attack my logic and my political views if you'd like. I'm not here to argue today, but it seems to me that this is obviously a "bad idea."
Yesterday, a wonderful article was published in Salon regarding planned protests of the GOP convention. Article summary: "If militants violently disrupt the GOP convention, it could be Chicago 1968 redux -- and Christmas in August for the Bush campaign." There is nothing like a free victory in a battle not fought.
We recognize the right to free speech, but I personally believe in the right of anyone to be heard. By my personal moral code, the correct way to respond to a man shouting wildly on the street is not to toss a brick his way, but rather to engage in conversation.
So please, think. It might work.
-Scott
So even /. has given up trying to maintain the difference betweeen the words hacker/cracker/kiddy?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
.. he did take the initiative in creating the Internet.
Think about it. They create an attack that uses zombies on the internet. Republicans cry "Terrorist" and next thing you know grandma and 12 year old katie are carted off to Hotel Cuba.
I would say Dems and more geared towards fairness than Republicans.
Wow, that sure sounded as compelling as your statement, didn't it?
These people are doing something absolutely horrible and you're turning it around to somehow make the Republicans the villains in all of this. What kind of human being are you?
I suppose doing anything more sophisticated than a page reloading script is beyond them...
Just post it on Slashdot, same effect.
What about reloading a page is innovative, clever, or technical?
Well, if it was a typical web page, then I'd say the innovative part is to drive up hits so that the high apparent traffic would enable the site maintainers to charge their sponsors more money.
But in this case, the GOP already has fully-functional mechanisms for getting their sponsors to contribute money; now there are Super Rangers if you round up an extra US$300K.
If you're a less wealthy Republican and can't raise that kind of money you can help out the cause by garnering signatures to help get Ralph Nader on the ballot, particularly in swing states.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
So now these wacky tree-hugging liberals are now using terrorist tactics? I'll bet Kerry organized this crap.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Wouldn't eliminating the Republican's "free speech" on the web via DDOS attacks
It's always ironic that the people who scream most about free speech, liberals, are the ones most likely to attempt to censor to their opponents.
Actually, it's more likely that it will be blamed on an organized effort sanctioned (in secret) by the Democratic party. The folks organizing this are idiots -- it will only give the Republics fodder for campaigning, and will help to associate Democrats with criminals in the public mind.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Surely we can blame this on the Republicans somehow... suggestions?
Excellent reference to one of the finest moments in Slashdot history *sniff*
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Then again, it wouldn't matter what Bush thinks when he's finally gone.
in 2008.
This Bush, anyway.
Carthago delenda est!
Put aside your political views and fears for just one solitary second, why don't all of you.
/. up a notch or two </fool>)
We have left leaners bleating "OMG, don't rile the GOP, they'll silence us for sure!!!"
We also have the right leaners whining "OMG, the lefties want to silence any opinion that they don't agree with!!!"
You've all got the wrong idea. Any limitation of speach is to the detriment of all. How are you to know a fool is a fool unless he speaks? (<fool> For instance, like me now, trying to bring the level of thought on
Stop passing around the tinfoil, people, and try to see that we simply have a bunch of punks with a false sense of superior morality trying to silence a view. It doesn't matter what political side they're on, they're not on the side of freedom, period.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
I am hoping that we have as much guts as the Spanish who had the guts to throw out a government that kept lying to them...
You know, America, home of the brave?
It's more petty than anything else.
Why not just go out and stand in front of the RNC's headquarters and block people from entering?
What they should be doing is going out and doing something positive, like getting involed with the political party they feel the most affinity for.
Personally, I think it's just a media ploy by a bunch of lowball egonauts.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Yes, they found a couple of pre-1991 shells that the UN had mistakenly not destroyed. Not the WMD that georgie was talking about. He was talking about Iraq making new WMDs, not this.
"Fox (News)" isn't prone to grotesquely twisting "fact" like CNN is.
There we go.
There is no doubt that Iraq had/has chemical and biological weapons. They USED them against Iran (and probably the US in the first Gulf War). However, the whole pretense for the U.S. attack was that Iraq was still developing these weapons, which they clearly were not. The best indication is that these tainted munitions were left over from the Iran-Iraq war and not specially developed for use by "tirrerists".
"Watch your cornhole, bud."
They sound like pretty good guys to me. . .
Actually, most hackers are libertarians, which is a sort of odd combination of right-wing economics and left-wing social values; most crackers are anarchists, an odd combination of shall we say skewed economics (sharing some extremely right wing elements with some extremely left wing elements) and extremely left-wing social values. This makes them (us) a rather non-typical political niche.
So, DDOS is not illegal? I think it is, actually. And this amounts to one.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If you're still going to vote for Bush, then you're supporting all of the neocon/theocons, whether or not you agree with them.
And remember...
...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." - John Kerry, 1/23/03
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
Other Kerry quotes of interest...
I'm sorry didn't realise one shell containing a small amount of Sarin counted as a weapon of mass destruction.
RTFA - "However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity."
much of a loser do you need to be to get 0wn3d by the World Bank
Ask Argentina
I disagree, this stunt is a glowing indication of this extremist ass-hat to engage in the political process in any meaningful way. It's disingenuous to compare this ass-hat to the entire left as it is for the left to compare the right to David Duke.
Criminals on either side shouldn't be seen as indicative of the entirety of the ideology.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
You mean the Spanish that caved to that terrorist attack?
Goooooooo Terrorism!
irc.enterthegame.com #linux
I can only imagine what the hackers did to www.bush.com
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
This isn't the solution if you don't like what the Republicans currently holding office in this country are doing.
One thing to do is vote, I agree, but I'd take it a step further.
It would be nice if America wasn't effectively a two-party system, but realistically, I don't see that changing anytime soon. It would take a third-party candidate with enormous popularity, credentials, and charisma, who for some reason would not run under either existing party to break that up. I can't imagine who such a person could be. Perot wasn't it. Nader isn't it.
The solution, I believe, is to work with the two parties we have.
Sure, you could just vote Democrat. God knows I probably will come election day for lack of a better option. But even if that was a viable long-term strategy, it would only encourage the Democratic party to wander further and further from being a voice of the people. Representative government, sadly, only works when the candidates need to fight for your votes.
What we need are geek Republicans. I'm completely serious about this.
Over the years the Republican party seems to drift more and more towards ideals I'm not happy with, such as religious extremism and being in the pocket of business. What if you tried to push it back towards more geek-acceptable ideals?
For example, what if you ran as a Republican and went against RIAA-supportive anti-fair-use laws on the grounds that people have their rights and the government should stay out of their way and let them use them? I mean, isn't small government supposed to be a Republican ideal?
Is this crazy?
but overthrowing the government wouldn't be very democratic, now would it? also, it would be an underhanded "commie" move, and just plain "un-amurican".
You know, every once in a while, I read a comment on slashdot which interests me. The parent may be one of them.
These guys, these "hackers", or "crackers", or whatever you want to call them, they aren't doing the right thing. But they think they are.
They truly believe that George Bush is a threat to the security of them and their children (assuming they aren't Mountain Dew Sterile by now), and desperately need to get him out of power. They've listened to him before, but don't want to give him the opportunity to speak now. They're willing to act without the broad support of the American Public, instead, as a rogue group to strike out against what they believe to be an unelected leader who's doing a very poor job. They're done trying to find evidence against him, they just want him out, and out now.
I mean - (and I know, this is a strettttttttch) - this isn't all that different from the way the Republican Party conducted the war in Iraq. Essentially, they had it listening to stories about how Saddam might be reforming and about how the weapons programs were over - he was bad, and we don't like bad people, and that was that. Thousands of people believe in this. Constructing biased data to fit a skew hypothesis is frighteningly easy with enough data to work with.
Maybe we need to look at this as not as sad statement on this one particular group, but a sad statement on American culture. There *is* data, there *is* evidence, and we should *never* start ignoring it because we have an agenda to push.
Well by that logic, DOS'ing someone with a packet flood wouldn't be illegal, either. I mean, it's just sending packets, right?
Chris -- http://www.bitter.net/
It's true -- trolling can be addictive.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
As a honorably discharged US Army veteran, someone who spent the first 17 years of his life living at or below the poverty line, a rabid conservationist and a product of the public education system, I unequivocally state that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Further, I have voted Republican for the last 14 years and will continue to do so, as the GOP is the only political party that fully represents my beliefs and value system, including a sense that everyone in this country is truly equal and deserves no more or less than their fellow citizen.
Wow, an old nerve gas shell from the iran/iraq war that someone forgot about. That's a really big fucking deal. You're grasping at straws, just like shrub.
Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD at one point, without a doubt. It also knows that Saddam was never fully cooperative with inspectors. The weapons inspectors could not verify that Iraq had complied, and in fact believed they hadn't, in 1998.
Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records, all the while Saddam Hussein himself thought he was increasing his investment in WMD?
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD. But the war in Iraq wasn't about WMD - it was a political reason chosen in the hopes of rallying UN support, and the support of the people of the US. The war in Iraq was about a multi-faceted effort to begin exerting influence, forcibly when necessary, in the middle east, in the hopes of stopping Panislamic radicalism in a generation or two rather than in a century or two. There are MANY aspects to this strategy: it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information, and some beginnings of open economies and markets to attempt to give the young people something to do, something to strive for, as well as full, unfettered access to news, information, and education, instead of focusing their energies on hatred of the West and the Infidel as taught by some segments of radical Islam. It's also, in case you haven't noticed, about the economic well-being of not only the US, but by extension, most of the civilized world.
So yes; in effect, this is a "war for oil". But it's not a war for oil so that greedy, fat Americans can drive Chevy Suburbans. It's a war to ensure the continued prosperity of the Western world, and thus the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of people. What about the people of Iraq, you say? WE WANT TO HELP THEM, TOO. We don't want to indiscriminately kill innocent people, though the loss of innocent life is a tragic side effect of any military action.
People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people and kill all the brownskins for oil (while installing a Starbucks and McDonalds on every street corner in Baghdad). It's a fuck of a lot more complicated than that. It's also a fuck of a lot more complicated than simplistic "you're either with us or against us"-type rhetoric. Any thinking person, of any political stripe, would realize that.
Two things here:
a) a page reloading script certainly shouldn't all that a hacker is capable of - but since they want people to voluntarily take part in this, they can't resort to illegal things. And page reloading can hardly be deemed illegal.
b) If you DO want to personally criticise someone (and I think "You yourself are an idiot" easily qualifies for that), then at least don't hide behind an "Anonymous Coward" mask.
"I'm against Bush but I don't want to kill him or take down his server or rage about how he's a filthy liar. I just want people not to vote for him because he hasn't done a very good job."
:)) direction, and will re-shape themselves into a better party.
If there were more people like you, I wouldn't be so anti-Democrat. I haven't been very impressed with Bush, but all the "ANYBODY BUT BUSH/NO BLOOD FOR OIL/OMGWTFBUSHSUX0RS" 'liberals' have completely driven me away from that side as well. While I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate, at this point I'd rather see Bush win than Kerry, mainly because the Democrat side seems so horrible now. Then again, if Bush loses, the Republicans may realize that they're been moving in the wrong (IMO, of course
Bah. As the Aliens vs Predator trailer says: Whoever wins, we lose.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
:: win32 ub3rskrip7 -ddf
:RELOADME
:NOWAREZ
:USAGE
:EXIT
@ECHO OFF
IF FOO=FOO%1 GOTO USAGE
IF NOT EXIST WGET.EXE GOTO NOWAREZ
WGET.EXE %1
GOTO RELOADME
ECHO YOU NEED WGET
GOTO EXIT
ECHO %0 URL
Funny how its the left who continually bitch about being "censored," yet they're quite willing to squelch anyone else's speech who they consider apostate.
Far too much of the discourse on this one has degraded to right-left name calling.
Simply put, this is bad for all of us. It makes the left look bad (you don't have to like it, but just like "Patriot" became a bad word for a while in the minds of the left and many centrists after Ok City, the same would happen here), it makes both sides go "we have to get control of this thing!"
No, this is stupidity at its finest. Do not give the government reason to crack down, and do not perform actions that are likely to get people to view your political party of choice in a less friendly light.
Since I know you're wondering, I'm a right-winger, military service, god-and-country, and all. Doesn't keep my brain from working.
...you guys are democrats. I knew something didn't look right here. I must have taken a wrong turn in albequerky.
nothing proves you beleive in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information like DDoS'ing your opponents in silence
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
The amount of they-don't-get-it-ness in this world is crazy. This is a perfect way to get Republicans to prove their point.
This happened with Michael Moore's film. Republicans protested and tried to block the film. This gave the film free advertising. In the 1968 DNC there was violent protests. This helped the republicans. This is also expected to happen at the upcoming RNC.
Now, liberals will be branded terrorists if they destroy the site.
I guess the criteria for being an extremist is to be cluless.
Or maybe it's a big conspiracy, and the extremist "opposition" is working for the other side. I don't think people are that smart though.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
is wrong with you??? This is not the Republicans doing this crap. It's probably not even Democrats so much as Bush-haters.
You're obviously one of them - you're so deep in your own cognitive dissonance that your response to this idiocy is to say, "what if the exact opposite happened" and then blame the Republicans anyway. Grow up. You're not helping your cause.
and the GOP (at least what the modern GOP has become... theocrats, neocons and corporate apologists) but this sort of disruption is just wrong on so many levels. Now its true that most of what Bush has to say is nothing more than lies, fear-mongering and propaganda... OK EVERYTHING he says falls into one of those categories, but even a fraud like like Bush has a right to say it. We should counter his lies, fear-mongering and propaganda with web sites of our own telling the "other" side of the story, not acting like the GOP thugs who intimidate anyone who critizes their Great Leader.
If we think we are better than this bunch of crooks & liars we ought to behave as if we are better then them, as true (small d) democrats, not just another set of absolutest goons.
ON a more practicle side this sort of thing (and any disruption of the RNC in NYC) is in danger of being counter productive. There are precious few undecided voters this election, and although it appears that Kerry is doing better than Bush amongst those voters, it won't take much to turn them off.
So I urge everyone who understands just how important it is to get rid of Bush and the neocon crazies in his administration not to try to disrupt the GOP's web sites or convention, but to channel the energy into a positive message.
For those who didn't see CrimethInc's presentation at Defcon, the guy almost got beaten off the stage (and Priest immediately followed the guy's overzealous speach with a heartfelt disclaimer).
When one idiot (who calls himself a "hax0r") starts preaching civil disobedience, it doesn't mean we all have to listen. In fact, the best thing we can do for CrimethInc is ignore him.
No reason for everyone to get over-excited arguing with, or about, an irrational mind.
Funny How you mention all this in light of what's going on in the government right now. What about religion? what about all the crap ashcroft is trying to pull? one of the main pillars of the right is their religious base, and the crap that's going on... you can't possibly insist that religion = freedom of expression, can you?
I was pretty dissapointed when you didn't nominate Gore again (and I knew that there was no hope for Hillary, this time). That would have been fantastic!
I was even more disappointed (if that's possible) when the Deaniacs failed.
But now "CrimethInc", of the "Black Hat Hackers Bloc", is going to do denial of service attacks on Republican websites. Bwah, ha, ha :) Oh please, not the briar patch! Don't throw me into that thar briar patch :)
If all those hackers would call their family and relatives in the bush-voting countryside and convince them not to vote for bush, they would have a better influence on the countries future.
It shouldn't take too much traffic to do the job.
http://www.eurocompton.net/~bhb/
http://www.phrack.ru
Looks like these 'script kids' wishing to be 'blackhats' may have found themselves in a little more trouble then they want. Oh they hang in #phrack on efnet. Hope this speeds up any investigation on them. Have a nice day
imagine a scenario were bush is able to claim it is cyvber terrorism and terrorist were behind it. Then proceed to cliam that terrorist are so afraid f him verses john kerry they will do anything to get thier guy elected. If he does this while all along distinguishin between normal people and the terrorist that would/could do somehtign like that and he is a sinch as for a re-election.
I would vote for someone my enemies hate that bad just because he is the single bigest threat to them. This could be just the fuel to take bush over the top in hius bid for re-election. I think it will be interesting to watch it have the exact oposite effect. Even if the site doesn't go down, the story is out and they can still claim it.
imagine a survey being reported, "when asked, 9 out of 10 terrorist prefered john kerry as the new leader. You too, should help the terrorist cause and vote for kerry" Or maybe somethign like this. "what does john kerry and terrorist have in common? They both view thier single bigest threat as george bush so much, they are both trying to get him out of office. Support the cause vote kerry and help a terrorist". well you get the picture.
Wow, that's got me convinced. I'm going to go down right now and change my party affiliation to Democrat.
(do I really need sarcasm tags here?)
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Violence begets violence, and taking away free someone elses right to speech will only take away your rights, ultimately. This is like using an axe to kill a fly. If you're truly against the Patriot Act and some of the anti-free speech things they've done then why are you trying to take away the Republican's right to free speech. You're condoning the same actions you're supposedly protesting against.
This equates to cyberterrorism and it justifies their cause... very UNamerican
don't stoop down to their level
i think a lot of people are very angry about occupation of the whitehouse by our current war criminal and chief. bush has been possibly the worst president this country has ever had. yes this reaction is childish and will be to the detriment of almost everyone involved however people feel helpless and angry, and in such situations people will do just about anything. i guess i can see both sides of this. though i think if people really wanted to do something electronic that would cause the GOP difficulty why not attack their email services. that might actually cause some scheduling difficulties or something.
yes you are correct, and it should be noted that my original post didn't include the qualifier "extreme" which was a mistake on my part.
I have many dear friends who are part of the political left, I don't agree with them, but they are so far above the antics of the *extreme* left.
sad robot making broken music
Who would have thought that the a couple of extreme leftist would do such a thing? I hope someone from the democratic party will come out and say that they do not condone this. This whole election year has really made me sick. Both sides have taken tons of cheap shots and has only served to divide the country more. I don't think there is anyway way to undivide the country and anyone that says they can have quite the lofty goal because I think it will be impossible. Look at Bush.. after 9/11 his approval rating was huge and we had a very united country. Now that election has come around the left decided that they needed to divide the country with as much propaganda and lies as possible. I'm sorry I have many friends serving in Iraq and it is really sad how much the media portrays as what we are doing there as evil. One of my friends was given a doll by a small Iraqi girl as a thank you for what he was doing. It was all she had and he tried to give it back be she refused.
I don't care if we do not find WMD's. Sadaam had plenty of time to destroy/hide them. We know he had them in the past and that he would use them. He needed to go (as well as many other dictators in this world too that i'm ashamed we havn't dealt with yet).
This moderate is voting right this year. I'm not going to betray people that we said we would free.
(don't pull the well Bush betrayed the US B.S. I've heard it a thousand times and I've seen Mr. Moore's 'movie' "which made me even more upset with the left")
How can a liberal censor anyone? The media, government and communications infrastructure are run by CONSERVATIVES.
As for most likely, do you have any statistics for that or just the usual innuendo and received "wisdom" from Fox?
they don't usually think things through.
The more grotesque, destructive and hate-filled RNC protests turn out to be, the more votes that get swung to Bush. We'll see how it plays out.
I think the actions of the radical Left groups are actually going to turn off a lot of support for Senator Kerry if the Democratic National Committee doesn't distance themselves from them. Does anyone remember the riots in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the protest that turned very ugly during the 1999 World Trade Organization conference in Seattle? These ugly scenes played right into the hands of the people who want law and order, and probably contributed a bit to the Presidential wins of Richard Nixon in 1968 and President Bush in 2000.
These "hacktivists" are going to be grouped among the anarchists, which will defeat their aims.
Because of Saddams strangle hold on Iraq.
Killing Shiite clerics? Hello? Think al-Sadr just suddenly felt like starting an Islamic state?
Get a clue douche.
To all of you DOSers out there -- in case it's not already obvious... Denial of Service attacks earn you no respect, it demonstrates no skills. It's like child molestation: it's so easy, anyone could do it. But why would you want to?
Anyone else ever notice how this group and other groups promoting anarchy of one form or another seem to always align themselves with the Democrats and against Republicans? It's not, as some might try to portray it, a matter of whoever is in power. It always seems to boil down to: anarchy loves the Democrats. Just curious as to why that might be...
You call this a signature?
Kind of interest how it is the Democrats are lacking morals and are doing this. Did Rebulicans do the same a little while ago? Not to my knowledge. It seems like something a 12 year old kid would do, but they can't even vote. Hmmm....
Pardon my ignorance (I'm Canadian, you see) but I thought the entire 'right to bear arms' and 'no standing army' provisions of the constitution were designed to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government, if they so chose? Didn't Jefferson himself actually think that the government SHOULD be overthrown every few years, just to keep it honest or something?
Why hack the GOP - just hack your local Diebold...
Neither side has a monopoly on freedom from inappropriate government intervention.
(BTW, this is not an advert for the Libertarian party, I don't think I should be able to put down my liver or kidneys to secure a loan).
Meanwhile, these "hacktivist" morons manage to be complete failures on both political and technical counts.
Sounds like the little green man to me"
You yourself are an idiot
It takes one to know one!!
You sir are an i****.
Maybe a bit paranoid, but he does have a point.
Even if this is a sincere attempt at civil disobedience, I think it's more likely to inspire sympathy for the Republicans and their agenda: "The enemy of these vandal assholes is my friend". It sure will be great PR for the Republicans if the mainstream press bites.
http://forum.defcon.org/archive/index.php/t-4251.h tml
Who said I had to vote for Bush? I vote for McCain in the 2000 primaries. In the 2000 November election, I didn't vote for either. Note that doesn't mean I opted out of voting.
That's why us Republicans, tired of being bundled with neocons, have gone the way of the Libertarian party.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Good. Just checking :-)
I agree, the orignal post is describing a bad thing to do. Vandalism is a crime whether it is painting a wall, or disabling someone's website.
Heh - appreciate the sentiment. Being a Republican, I don't mind Democrats disagreeing with me. That's par for the course. The really weird fringe is what bothers me. Like these "hacktivists". If they knew what was good for them and their candidate, they would not go out and do something illegal.
these "hackers" are 14 year old kids in Europe and Asia who won't be voting anyways.
"...remember how, in front of the UN in the run-up to
the Iraq war, a couple of trucks in the middle of the desert were
"mobile bio weapon research/development platforms"? (Exactly those
that, like all the weapons of mass distruction, can't be found now)..."
Huh??? Have you been living in a cave? They did find those kinds of trucks, exactly as they were described. Except these ones were long abandoned and they found no chemicals in them. So they had a hard time proving what they were used for. So libs have taken the easy route and labeled it farm equipment. So it must be that, especially since they've found stockpiles of barrels labeled "pesticides" in underground military bunkers...
Yes, Saddam had 12 years to hide their pesticides. And the WMD are no where to be found... Must be that.
And Repub Supporters want to DoS their website to give a reason to restrict freedoms... Brilliant... or not... stop taking stupid pills.
I'd just like to point out that Kerry has made it clear that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, if we had had the support of the world to do it. We did not. I think people don't remember that the US is a member of the world, and no longer a Superpower. We need to work with the rest of the world to solve our problems and theirs, not against the world.
The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
Can you please explain to me what a voting booth is?
This was the work of Evil Doers who hate our way of living.
If they were smart, they'd do this to the Democrats' site too, simultaneously.
Feh. Socialists of different colors are still socialists.
This is how totalitarian states start: By disabling the others' ability to give their opinion.
:)
I don't like Bush, I know (it is an opinion. I have no facts to offer) that he and his administration did quite anti-democratic things. However, I strongly condemn the hackers actions.
Besides, why block what Bush has to say? He'll probably say stupid things
perception is reality
People in general are bigot assholes. It's just that in America you have the right to tell the world about it.
Unless you're a Republican that is.
Gotta love the smell of broad generalizations in the morning.
Of course it's all true, I called in early this morning to the Secret Organization of Liberals for the Removal of All Freedoms this morning, and my vote put them over the top to start "Operation: Hypocrite."
Sometimes, I think people are so bent on the whole "one nation, under god" in the Pledge of Alliegance that they forget that the Pledge ends "with liberty and justice for all"
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
1. is a diabolical, cunning Fascist.
2. is a drooling, incompetent idiot.
NOTE: It's perfectly OK to use BOTH of these arguments in reference to the same person - even in the same debate. Trust me, no one will ever notice the contradiction!
HINT: Free speech means everyone gets to express their ideas, not just you.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
..."90-95%" still leaves hundreds of tons.
Iraq had a lot of WMD. You'll note that I didn't say that Iraq "kicked out" the inspectors in 1998, an untruth routinely repeated by US and other media: I correctly noted that the inspectors were pulled due to lack of effectiveness, because of Saddam accusing the inspectors of being US spies, only the latest twist in Saddam's lack of cooperation during fruitless attempts at complete disarmament.
I'm aware of all the facts here: the thing that gets me most about liberals is this belief that anyone who might support this military action or holds a conservative viewpoint only does so out of ignorance, greed, brainwashing, not knowing "The Truth", or a combination of the above.
Why don't you read http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
But, though I'm at risk of repeating myself several times in this thread, the the effort in the middle east is not about "WMD in Iraq".
Fringe elements from either side of the political spectrum often resort to unethical and even illegal tactics to try to give their side more of an advantage. Consider the veteran's group that recently ran those TV ads flat-out accuse Kerry of lying about his service in Nam. While they GOP had nothing to do with this group neither the GOP nor th e White House denounced their slanderous attacks on the presidential challenger. John McCain did, but that's no suprise (last honest republican left in the Senate whos head is either in a hole or up a butt). I certainly wouldnt endorse wholesale hacking of republican sites. It's unethical, illegal, and shouldnt be done, but if it happens i'll certainly not lose sleep over it or have a whole lot of pitty for those running the sites. What's good for the goose...
Right, except that wasn't my point.
You can not blame Bush for "misguiding" the American people on Iraq, because Kerry was just as misguiding. Actually, since Kerry has the vote to give Bush the authority to go to war (Congress declares war, or gives the president the ability), then Kerry is actually MORE responsible for the war in Iraq than the president.
But in reality, you are never going to have 100% approval from every nation. The fact is that the U.S. and U.K. had support by over 30 nations (36 I believe) in the effort. However, just because it did not include France and Germany, Kerry says "it was unilateral!"
This is a sad state when cooperation requires the help of the French.
I like how you ask people to ignore Bush's "you're with us or you're against us" and then go on to describe American Middle Eastern foreign policy as similarly black and white. Are our only options clumsy military intervention and an equally clumsy nation-building effort or doing nothing at all? I would like to think a little more creativity could be applied to the problem.
Similarly, securing energy supplies would be best done in concert with efforts to increase economic incentives for more efficient use of that energy.
The error here is to treat the Republican party as worthy of attention. Ignore them. Vote for Kerry.
In the media ruled days before the election, it can be difficult to remember an old truism: The Republicans are like schoolyard bullies, ignore them and they soon go away.
Now, if we can make the national religion something sensible like buddhism, this will occur much more quickly.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I think the odds that any of them regularly engage in non-auto fucking are quite small.
I am hoping that we have as much guts as the Spanish who had the guts to throw out a government that kept lying to them...
What the hell are you talking about? Brave? The reason the prior government was thrown out was because a recent bombing scared enough people to vote for the other guy. If they were brave they wouldn't have been swayed by the obvious manipulation of their election by terrorists.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
i don't care how much you despise an idea... there is never a reason to suppress someone else's free speech rights. just because an idea, group, or person is unpopular, it does not give any group, body, or individual the right to squash their ability to convey their message. i don't like bush nor the gop but it's important that the american public learn both sides of an issue so that they can make informed decisions.
Is it 5:30 yet?
How the actions of such "activists" differ from the efforts of government, RIAA, MPAA, etc. to restrict our access to information and the truth is left as an exercise for the reader.
the Republicans have all the money in the universe (or soon will) so they'll just buy more servers and ride it out, no?
Why does this myth perpetuate so much that the Republicans are the fat cats? Consider:
o The Democratic bankroller, George Soros, is a multi-billionaire. He's the funder behind MoveOn.org and one of the world's wealthiest persons.
o Warren Buffet, multi-billionaire and depending on the list, the second richest man in the US (behind Bill Gates, who donates to both parties) is exclusively pro-Democrat.
o Most of Hollywood's rich are Democrats and despise Republicans.
o Most of the Fortune 500 CEOs are either pro-Democrat or contribute to both parties.
o Enron's CEO and CFO were very close friends to Kerry's wife, and the CEO was on one of her boards.
o Global Crossing did sweetheart deals (invest a couple hundred grand, get $16 million back, while the common folk get screwed) for the DNC head.
o When research has been done on who donates to the parties, the Republican party's donations consisted of mostly numerous small donations by the non-wealthy with some large fat cat donations, while the Democrat donations were the other way (mostly rich folks with large donations). Here's a clue to help you validate this fact: look at what geographic regions vote Republican (aka fly over country, or the "Red states" which the elitists aka Democrats point out are rural schmucks not worth their time). Ever wonder why elitists are almost always Democrats too? Ever wonder why the media elitists hate humble people (i.e. George Bush, Ronald Reagan) and make fun of them as idiots because they don't understand complexities (that's code for relativism)?
Seriously, you've gotta get off the plantation and quit buying into the master's propeganda. Yes, both parties listen to money, but quit buying this rich fat cat propeganda that the Democrats are for small folk, pro minorities (look at which party fought for slavery and even ran a candidate against President Lincoln that promised to end the civil war and let the south keep the slaves).
Please... read your history. Check the facts yourself. The only thing sadder than living life blindly as a house negro is a house negro who conducts terroristic acts against his liberator, as these DoS efforts represent.
Of course, the thing to realize is that for the most part Kerry has been keeping out of this overt Bush bashing. I mean, compare his speeches with those of pretty much everybody else and you see that when it comes to the opposition, he's the least rabidly Pro-Kerry guy in the bunch.
It is a shame that we've got a pro-Bush, anti-Bush populous, but that is what you get in a system that only allows for a binary vote. There is no chance that a third party candidate will win, so your choices are: vote for whoever you think will do the better job among Bush or Kerry, throw your vote away on an empty statement that won't change the system in the slightest, or stay home and eat some Cheetos.
After all, should Kerry win, chances are we'll still have a Republican majority in Congress, creating one of those great balances of power that usually result in sane governance. They'll be too busy fighting with each other to achieve anything dangerous.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Replace "better influence" with "more effective influence" and I'll buy that statement. I believe it is still unclear which choice in the upcoming US presidential election will be "better" from an objective standpoint. (Mostly because people don't even know against which objective measures the quality of a president's term should be evaluated.) "better" depends on "better for whom" and "better in what way" which is usually a qualitative situation rather than a quantitative one.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
They won't need to. You should have been in Philadelphia in 2000. The PD there was the best anyone could have asked for. Like many protests, it started out peaceful and ended up violent or stupid. The fact of the matter is republican or democrat doesn't matter much in a mob; getting that many agitated people who tend to be younger and probably easily impressionable and it's a magnet for trouble.
It is, perhaps, a stereotype that most protests are filled with people between the ages of 18 to 25, but from what I've seen it's largely true, with older people leading them. It makes sense though, that's the group of people who have the time to leave their lives for a couple weeks, go accross the country, and protest. They are also the ones willing to live in the streets for a bit and have the energy to keep up that kind of passion. They are also the least likely to actually vote, and the most likely to make an uninformed decision without listening to the rationale on both sides.
Whether or not you agree with me, it's these perceptions developed largely by actually being forced to live in an area where protests were supposed to be "sticking up for me" that automatically makes me label protestors as idiots, no matter what they are out protesting. Republican, Democrat, Antiabortion, prochoice, environmentalist, antiwar, -- all of it is better served by discussion, not screaming. There are few instances I can think of where a protest would do more good than a well written letter.
Never confuse volume with power.
oh yes, of course, it's all a conspiracy...uh-huh. yeh and al gore really IS a robot, kennedy was killed by aliens, and atlantis is at the bottom of my swimming pool....
yknow, maybe some things really are what they appear to be, the SCO suits got hackers upset because SCO was pissing on OSS, and the war got some hacker upset because probably some of their friends who were in the service were injured or killed. Yeh war sucks, but there is never any excuse to sink to the level of DDOS attacks, and the republicans have just as much of a right to have their message out there as the democrats.
if you don't like what bush is doing, then vote for kerry, but DDOSing websites is retarded.
for my part, at least bush knows what the hell he stands for, i'll be voting for 4 more years of W.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
How does this get a 4?
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD
To who?
Where are they?
How come only half the US believe this and most of the rest of the world don't?
It's more clear as time goes on that the premise for the war was shaky at best, due to either incompetent leadership or incompetent intelligence agencies. Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction but that was a long time ago. As we drew up to war it seemed that he might have some still, but there was certainly no definite evidence. Now it appears there really were non, as we can't find any.
I remember advocating two simultaneous reactions to 9/11:
It's not "girly" or "unpatriotic" to think about how one's actions affect others.
W.R.T. right vs left: It would be great if people thought about efficiency and effectiveness and responsibility once in a while instead of constantly going on about rights all the damn time. I am tired of laziness, intellectual and otherwise, substituting for getting together to get the job done (whatever the job is at any given time).
Genuine thinking is difficult and takes discipline. But worst of all, taking the time to actually consider one's approach is being labeled by both sides as unpatriotic/wrong/girly/wonkish/etc. I guess it's not exciting enough.
Are they going to claim that DDOS is freedom of speech?
Im not a huge George W. fan, I dont like his views on immigration, IMO he isn't a true reagan conservative which is what we need.
Kerry on the other hand is either a liar or a war criminal- "I personally didn't see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that," Kerry said. "However, I did take part in free-fire zones, I did take part in harassment and interdiction fire, I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these acts, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg Principles, is in fact guilty." - John Kerry Source Included,I hate facts pulled from no where
Did he do those things? I dont know. But either he did and he is a war criminal, or he didnt and he's a liar. It's one or the other. Living in rhode island with a fiance in MA, I see what Kerry is like up close. He doesnt do much. I just wouldnt trust him with the keys to the country.
Perhaps if Bush had simply said that to begin with instead of towing the WMD line, people might have generally gone along with him. Perhaps we all could have an honest, adult discussion about the issue and what might be the best way to deal with it.
I still think war in Iraq was really not the best way to start combatting Islamic fundamentalism/radicalism, but perhaps I didn't have all the info. I certainly wasn't given the chance to change my mind or think about it, I was just told Iraq had WMDs and was linked to Osama, both of which turned out not to be true (and Osama's name hasn't been mentioned by the President more than 6-7 times in the past year - apparently not much of a concern for him).
I believe war can be just and necessary from time to time. I agree that fundamentalism of all kinds, especially the kind that tends towards militarism, is the biggest problem we need to be dealing with in the 21st century. Unfortunately Bush picked the wrong target, misled everyone and now we're in a mess that seems to be making things worse than better.
If it were true, it might be ironic. But it isn't. Or, at least, I don't think it is and you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your assetion. Are you calling this Black Hat Hackers Bloc "liberals"? Why? Because they're anti-Bush? Is that your definition of "liberal"? And even if they called themselves "liberal", they'd only constitute a single instance. Bad logic.
it seems the situation has been fixed.
Huzzah.
Like the DMCA? Signed into law by a Dem pres w/ a Rep controlled congress.
Free speech only applie to liberals. Moveon.org runs ads about W's military record where even the liberal media has found no wrong yet when the Swiftboat Vets. recount eyewitness testimony Moveon wants their free-speech stifled. W didn't lie, he just moved on intelligence that was later found to be questionable. (And that has since been said to be credible and that the Brits stood by all along, I might ad!). Yet Kerry, according to solid evidence reported in the press and from eyewitness testimony, has out-and-out lied about his service and people still will vote for him. That, my friends, is stupidity.
What planet are you on? The US is the only superpower at the moment. That won't last but it is a simple fact at this point in time.
Personally I don't see why we are tying success or failure to what Europe thinks. There are PLENTY of nations supporting us. Just because the former world powers have some issues, why should we care?
What we should be doing is positioning ourselves properly for our upcoming rivals, China and India. If not, then we will be well and truly screwed within 50 years.
Bogging a site down due to page loads isn't illegal. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion because Slashdot wouldn't exist...
The difference is intent. Posting a link to an interesting website on a public forum with intent to share the information contained within that site is legal. It may annoy the occasional webmaster, but server load is their problem.
A DDOS attack is clearly different. The pages are not being "viewed" by anybody except the software, which is doing nothing with the information. It is a blatant attempt to dramatically increase server load for no other reason than to deny other people from accessing the server.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
Just in case you were thinking of actually printing such a t-shirt, you'll need to condense that concept down to five words or fewer to make it a truly successful political slogan. Small words, mind.
The LEFT is silencing the speach of the RIGHT.
This same left that cries "Free Speech" any time someone even voices an opinion against them.
I bet some leftie will mod me down. That's why I am posting AC.
And page reloading can hardly be deemed illegal.
If it actively and by intent does harm web traffic, it IS illegal.
If I was american, I would probably prefer a war criminal to a deserter. (and liar)
perception is reality
This is either really naive or really deceptive, however I tend to think its the latter:
If anybody is so stupid to listen to these script kiddies, they deserve to end up in jail. People like this give hackers a bad name.
You babbling about their Christianity just makes you look like an idiot. Let me guess, you're a Democrat?
From Wikipedia
"Many of today's most famous neocons are from Eastern European Jewish immigrant families, who were frequently on the edge of poverty. The Great Depression radicalized many immigrants, and introduced them to the new and revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism."
there is a direct correlation linking today's useless and bug filled software with the new generation of geeks who sit behind a pc all day and just learn the technology with no mathematical or engineering skills to back them up. these are the same uninformed narrow-minded people who become activists, anti-capital, and anti-republican. the best software is still written by educated, smart, and rational engineers/mathematicians who tend to be conservative, by nature, and understand the logic and meaning behind republican beliefs.
this act is typical of the young, uninformed modern geek.
Just to beat the rush...
In Soviet Russia, it gets YOU!
mmmmmmmmm,
what's wrong with being an iBook?!
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
IANA Spaniard, but I thought most Spanish voters were pissed that the government immediately blamed those Basque people when their own intel sources were saying it was Al Qaeda.
i.e., the election was not about "caving" or "standing up" to the terrorists; it was about standing up to a government that was putting ideology ahead of solid intel.
Hmmm... why does that sound familiar?...
All's true that is mistrusted
One article i remember distinctly was essentially saying 'Dumpster Diving is great, we should all dumpster dive, why buy food when its free, and fights the man!'.
Heck, yeah! What loss is it if a bunch of stupid anarcho-kiddies give themselves food poisoning?
Nature abhors a dumbass. Let 'em die.
"better" depends on "better for whom"
Bush stands for the rich getting richer, corporations becoming more powerful, and government having more control of our daily lives. That said, Kerry doesn't seem to stand for much of anything, so... yeah it's still unclear. Do you vote for the guy whose policies you abhor, or vote for the guy whose policies you can't be sure of?
MORTAR COMBAT!
I don't support Bush even if I tend to agree with Republicans. But even I can see a con job and a grab for oil for what it is.
However that doesn't make a DDOS attack right. If Bush's message is so bad then why shouldn't it be heard. All this does is drive up sympathy and plays in to the terrorist fear mindset that is the cornerstone of the Bush agenda.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Ask Argentina
Indeed. The irony is that Argentina's debts, when the World Bank shat on them, were far less severe than the USA's. The USA is the most indebted nation on the planet.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Sure a page reloading can be ilegal. If you use a product normaly and somethign happens then no. constantly reloading a page or pages faster then you can view it is at the minumum criminal mischief. With the complexities of the DMCA, it could even be considered a felony if it denys certain "protected" services they are running. Of course the DMCA part might be a stretch but they are using the patriot act to prosectue drug dealers now, so it isn't too far of a stretch. What happens when they claim someone was injured because of this and now everyone involve is facing life in prison? ohh you don't think there is a record of who's ip hit what even after anouncing the plan to the world?
I see what you are saying and it definatly does look harmless and almost like a prank. The problem really lies within the intent of the action wich can easily elevate it into somethign else. Reloading a page is inocent, reloading a page so fast you are trying to disrup services is not. Reloading a page so fast as to disrupt services in concert with others to make sure you achive your goal really sounds like criminal intent.
What is going to be funny is when everyone that participated wakes up next month to find thier credit cards have been use to buy somethign in russia. Or thier ISP telles them to stop sending spam, or even better their anti virus all the sudden decides to report viruses that were installed because the reload script downloaded trojans or somethign durring the flood.
Wouldn't this be really funny if this is just a trick to get alot of people to install a spam relay and the reload script has a vulnerability in it allowing mass conections and owner ship of the computer being run on? After this day, your internet conection would be nothign more then a spam rellay or some owned node in a hacking or kiddy porn hosting job. I wonder if the reload script is open source?
Have you lost your mind?
Nearly EVERY media outlet, including entertainment outlets, are so liberal you would need to be blind and deaf not to see it. There are exceptions but the ratio has to be at least 8:1.
It doesn't have to be a violent protest to make the protesters look bad. They can be peaceful but still look bad because by the way they protest. Such as protests against the GOP they are protesting the party as a hole or the fact that the elected official is in office. If they are protesting for an Issue (Say Gun Control) the protesters need to get all their facts straight and protest using facts. Saying Bush is a Nazi or Kerry is a Pinko Commy. Isn't going to fix anything it just shows that the protesters are stupid. But if you protest I am for/against this because of these reasons and if anyone stops and ask them what they are protesting against any of the protesters should have enough information to look good and informed on the issues (Both Sides) thus able to debate it properly.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
so i suppose you are just forgetting about the 4000 liters of anthrax, vx, and mustard gas.
how convenient.
but yep yep, im sure saddam destroyed all of that, when he kicked the UN inspectors the hell out.
Why not just go out and stand in front of the RNC's headquarters and block people from entering?
Does the name "Gitmo" mean anything to you?
Huh? What's with the idea of bringing liberals into this discussion? We're talking extremists here. Extremists on both sides of political idealogy are against liberty. Extremists are the ones who want to shut up (or lock up) their opponents. This has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives, both of whom hate actions such as this (or such as the White House neo-cons have been doing). Extremists are the problem, not conservatives or liberals.
I don't have time to write a novel about this on slashdot. Yes, there are many issues, such as the American attitudes against conservation, energy companies who have an interest, at some level, in delaying or hindering adoption of alternative energy sources, etc. But any transition to any type of alternative energy capabilities is going to take decades to complete. And, true to form, the political system in the US along with capitalism may indeed delay the transition while cheaper short term options are available. I'll stipulate to all that. You're also forgetting about the energy density of oil vs. other alternative sources. Indeed, there is plenty of research going on in alternatives energies - but not nearly enough. The main problem with the attitude in the US, I believe, is this idea that you have to drive a car as big as a peapod or turn out all the lights in your house in order to "conserve". People have no idea how much can be conserved simply by using energy more wisely. There is no technological reason, at present, why a Chevrolet Suburban cannot exceed 40mpg with technologies like Displacement on Demand for combustion engines, and a couple of electric motors thrown in. There is no reason that we can't start using fluorescent and LED lighting in place of incandescent, with exactly the same results, but with ridiculous savings. The US is a wasteful society. I disagree with the stance that paints that privilege as "blessed", and ignores any need for conservation, foresight, or wisdom in energy usage. Sure, corner someone, and everyone will agree that these things are "good ideas" - but it takes action. Action that I'm afraid won't stem the tide of problems that are already happening in relation to the rise of Panislamic fundamentalism in recent times. My view is merely a pragmatic one: we need stable energy out of the mideast, period (by the way, did you know that the US's largest energy providers are places like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, but that price stability is almost a more important need from the mideast than the oil itself?). "We" is not the US. It's the whole Western world. And with China in the mix, who knows what will happen. You, like many others, also completely missed the fucking point. I'm not talking about "bombing" everything into oblivion, but some of this change will only happen with military action. And yes, even though you sarcastically denounce it, we sure as fuck should stop one Islamic state from rising in the middle east, because the people who will be in power will effectively be far worse than the Taliban ever were, with access to all weapons information amassed by the whole of governments in the mideast. I'm not saying that their goal could completely happen, but they'll stop at nothing trying. And we should stop at nothing to kill it. There comes a time when "tolerance" is no longer the appropriate course of action, if protecting yourself is more important.
Please, someone propose a better protest then.
So far, here's what we have:
- Street protests: Yeah, that'll make a big difference. Oh, another mass of people protesting in a major city? What good did the hundreds of thousands in multiple protests last year in Manhattan, or the millions in cities across Europe accomplish?
- Voting: Yeah, that'll make a big difference. That huge political gulf (sarcasm) between Bush and Kerry notwithstanding, there's very little to hold either to their election day promises, as many a President has shown.
To paraphrase Peter Lamborn Wilson, where did we cross the line where we forgot that protesting about the possibility of political consequences is not the same as political consequences? Voting for the RDNC will not solve our predicament. There has been a concerted effort between the parties to dig us into this hole for 50 years, and surprise, surprise, people are starting to lose faith in the system.
This is a big vote, indeed. But the likely outcome, a Bush/Kerry win, will only change the rate at which new suckage spews forth from the headlines.
What is one to do as this nation, and many of it allies, decends into war?
If you give a real alternative protest with real political consequences, these petty hackers will listen.
If you don't, you're probably part of what they're protesting.
All Hail New Hampshire, then.
--Petey
Well, at least the nutjobs on the left wing haven't blown up any federal buildings lately.
The rest of the world be damned. We need to do what is in our own best interest, whenever it suits us. If others want to help, great. If not, get out of the way.
When Kerry says "world opinion" he really means "left-wing French intellectuals." He and his ilk feel uncomfortable in Left Bank coffee shops nowadays, boo hoo hoo. Tough shit. Those people are NEVER going to take our side in anything.
Besides, they will soon cease to exist. In a generation or so, the Muslims will have conquered Europe by breeding like rats, and all the leftists and homosexuals and feminists in France will have had their heads chopped off.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
BTW, the Spanish are cowards for caving to terrorists.
I am Spanish. What's funny about this is that the Spanish people reacted not out of fear but anger. Ask any Spaniard you meet - did you vote because you were afraid of another attack? (Kiss Bush's)Assnar served only George Bush's agenda, and put Spanish troops in Iraq despite over 90% of the population opposing the war. The fact is that he made our country less safe by allowing the Spanish military to be led by GWB, and we were tired of a president who acted the way the president of the US wanted, not the people of Spain.
And if you're a marine, aren't you concerned about the fact that GWB never served his country?
In this instance, the infantile Democrats are actively doing whatever they can to prevent the Republicans from communicating their message.
However, this is a presidential campaign, and they are supposed to be about ENTERTAINMENT. What good a campaign without dirty tricks?
You assume that Bush et al. are centrist (or at least moderate) but when the Republicans represent nothing but the extreme religious right
Bullshit, that is like saying the democrats only represent PETA or some other fringe group. I consider myself paleo-conservative, and a republican yet I am not religious at all. The republicans still represent me because I believe in less government, lower taxes, pre-emptive strikes on nations that support terrorism. I also believe abortion is murder, which has nothing to do with religion for me but logic. You may not believe what I do, but to say that Bush only represents the religious right is short sighted.
(at least those who are educated and can think for themselves) is to the left of the Republicans. If you then add in the rest of the Western world, who are almost all opposed to Bush and his cronies, then you will find only a very small number of intelligent people who would support the Republicans whether they consider themselves left or right wing.
I consider myself intelligent, I graaduated college with a degree in comp sci, and work for an ivy league school as a programmer. I spend most of my time engaged in critical thinking, and as far as politics go I see the republicans as the lesser of two evils.
My assumption is that these people are will be involved in this as most of the other right wing religious nuts are in third world countries (such as Iran) or living in a trailer park
It's silly and bigoted to assume that all religious "nuts" are poor. It's as bigoted as when religious people argue that atheists have no morals.
You talk a lot about intelligence but I think you need to learn to accept contrasting viewpoints to your own.
Hussien USED WMDs on his own people. Remember? The Kurdish village on TV with all the dead people laying in the streets?
at this point I'd rather see Bush win than Kerry
Go watch F911 and then see if you still have a spark left of wanting Bush to win.
However, the 36 number is misleading. While I'm not positive on the exact number, many of the countries in our coalition were in fact protectorates or in some other way under the protection of the US military forces. The reason it was unilateral is because the US made up the vast majority of combatatants in the war.
The UN is not designed to be a police force in the world, but NATO is. And I'm really getting sick and tired of all the anti-french sentiment.
I don't mean this as flamebait, I am actually curious. Exactly which lies has Kerry told? I have heard a lot about him being a liar, and a flip-flopper, but I have heard exactly *one* fact to back up these claims: the fact that he voted for the war in Iraq, but now is against it. Which I agree, makes him a person who has reversed an earlier decision (perhaps based on new evidence, perhaps based on political concerns), but I really have not heard of any *lies* he has told.
The republicans own the media.
They won't let peaceful protesters within blocks of the President or in view of a camera taping the President.
The debate process blocks anyone with a differing view.
This is just about the only way people have left to voice their views. They aren't hurting anyone and they may very well make themselves look stupid. It is simply peaceful, but unlawful, protest.
To quote Cris Rock, "I'm not saying that its right, but I understand."
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were well off. They were not poor people.
They were all educated as their culture dictates:
The knew the Koran.
Your fetish about "neo-cons", bombs, and "stiffy" is amusingly self-revealing.
Besides the awful job performance thus far, the biggest thing that turned me into an ABB (Anybody But Bush) type was just listening to the guy talk. I can't help but think that anybody who is qualified to lead the U.S. should have a fairly orderly mind. Shrub's difficulty putting words together fairly screams that something very basic is wrong.
OK, I know that I shouldn't expect every competent person to be silver-tongued. We all know plenty of good, smart people whose verbal interaction skills are poor. But I'm not asking George W. to write software for me. We need him to lead. Shouldn't leaders be able to coherently express their thoughts?
I'm not really trying to make a joke, here. I am sincerely wondering how much weight I should place on a candidate's ability to talk to people. I see the job of president as one that requires orderly thought and the ability to express those thoughts verbally. By that measure, Bush comes up short.
Or am I placing far too much emphasis on this one small part of being a leader?
I am sincerely confused on this. Anybody have any thoughts?
They didn't cave. They threw out a Gvt. that lied to them. The new Gvt. was against the war from the outset.
Check out my PHP Url Validator
It's just as probable that it was produced between Desert Storm and 2003.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Your pretty close to what Jefferson had in mind. The threat of instability causes stability (Yin Yang). Like you said, a well armed militia (in his days militia was the common folk) forces that a government be righteous in the decision and if these decisions become atrocious, beyond anything written in the powers of the constitution, then said militia should rebel because that is no longer ruling under the original constitution. This causes both the people and the government to accept a status quo in a peaceful existence. In addition, to make a note: it has worked quite well for 200 some odd years. The government stays in line, there is not need for a bloody rebellion, and the people seem somewhat agreeable with the governing body.
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/
This is somewhat similar to today's free speech zones; although somewhat less severe.
Photos.
After all this is all that matters. No thinking ahead allowed!
Until and unless Iraq-sponsored terrorists *actually* take out an entire US City with a dirty nuke or a gas attack, we should just sit around and do nothing.
So in the same vein, if you vote for Kerry, you're supporting all the wacko Greenpeace, tree-huggin, anti-capitalist, anti-trade communists, whether or not you agree with them. :)
I'd guess it's the theory that one side is a little closer to what you believe than the other...
Your name sums it up nicely. Thanks for the insight.
ACT NOW! Configure your routers to block all requests to these sites through the end of the election!
We'll show those evil hackers who's in charge around here.
(sprinkle liberally with smiley's for the humor impaired...)
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or not with you, but I just wanted to stress that There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for help. It builds friendships and trust between great nations of the free - kinship between the good guys. The US gets help anyway, like Canada cleaning up after them in Afghanistan or after WWII, so it makes sense to acknowledge that help rather than pretend they were solely responsible for EVERYTHING. At least Kerry wants more troops at home where they could defend the states rather than spread all over the eastern hemishere.
I wouldn't call the US pussies, but I can't see how Bush could be a lesser evil (he certainly isn't a lessor: "one that conveys property by lease"). Less war would be good for all, and anyone who votes for more war is going to invite it home inadvertently.
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
lessor? where were you when they were teaching spulling? Or has Bush cut education spending that far already.
Anyway. Let's see, Bush has: sent American troops to die in an illegal war and after lying to the country about the reasons. He's presided over a regime that's successively stripped away your rights and freedoms. He's had out billions in tax breaks and dodgy contracts to his cronies (Halliburton): to such an extent that he's turned a massive budget surplus under the Democrats into a truly awe-inspiring defecit.
And what has Kelly done?
Clinton only lied about who was sucking his dick (and how is that anyone else's business anyway). Bush lied and got thousands of people killed, *increased* terrorism and reduced your freedoms (including the freedom to learn how to spell it seems).
And Kelly has done what exactly that even begins to compare with Bush's fundamental corruption? Hmm let's see.... Nope, nothing is still the answer. Let's face it, in many ways Saddam Hussein would be the lesser of two evils when put up against Dubyah: at least he's honest about how he came to power.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Slam. F'ing. Dunk.
Well stated, well reasoned, well done.
I'm so glad that we, who are irate over government censorship and repression of free speech rights, have no ethical problem with trying to silence people we disagree with. We, who demand that white male American learn to be tolerant of different viewpoints and cultures, are first to leap onto a bandwagon of bigotry and hate against a group of people who we just disagree with.
You people are disgraceful, and you're no better than these conservative hacks that you hate so much. In fact, you're JUST like them.
Chemical munitions can do a lot more damage...even just one.
Btw, BBC isn't exactly a paragon of truth.
Have you met many Americans? Do they know what totalitarian means? Do they admit their own failings? Can they make sentences w/ subject/verb agreement?
I'm not trying to say that Americans are slobbering idiots that deserve the crap leaders they get, but advocating silence and letting the GOP self-destruct just doesn't seem to acknowledge the apathy/lack of critical thinking that's so prevalent in America. I don't know the solution to the problem, but counting on analytical, intelligent voters is not it.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
It's:
Yeah they did cave. The terrorist attack happened right before the election. That turned a lot of scared citizens (actually seeing that they could be the victim of terrorist attacks) to vote for the party that would get them out of the terrorists' crosshairs. This newly elected government then pulled out of Iraq in order to lessen the chance of more terrorist attacks in their country.
The terrorists scored a huge win in Spain with that one and showed Spain just who was their boss.
If you Read The Article you would have realized that they were not only advocating page reload *programs* and distributing them (for the express purpose of DoS), but also "mischief and mayhem" by hacking and defacing websites.
I would wager to guess that the "organizers" of this DoS could be charged with something, but no I don't think it is currently *expressly* illegal, but it is at minimum disturbing the Cyber-Peace, which could be translated from current laws.
Under the previous 12 years of sanctions, groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have estimated that approximately 50,000 Iraqis have died each year. When queried about realistic options on how to deal with Iraq, pre-war, the anti-war position unanimously chanted "continue sanctions".
Funny how, pre-Iraq-war, virtually the same crowd of people was vehemently opposed to sanctions in Iraq, due to its detrimental effect on the people of Iraq, while having virtually no effect on the leadership; indeed, effectively strengthening Hussein's power.
So now, what of these 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
Well, here's some numbers for you:
Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
This of course, ignores the whole concept that sometimes it's necessary to take lives to save far more. Sometimes I wonder if the US is the same country that effectively fought WWII...
I have two cases for you to help you ponder your hypocrisy:
Al-Jazeera
Yellow Times
Censorship is wrong. A liberal would not be in favor of censorship. These guys are more accurately described as anarchists.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Well, I'm kinda with ya there...if the Dems had put up a better candidate, they would have a pretty good shot at it, but, Kerry? Man, the more I hear about him...the more disingenious I find him to be. I'm not thrilled about Bush, but, I'm finding Kerry even less thrilling of late. I kinda wish Edwards had gotten the Dem. prez. nod...but, I don't think this is a slam dunk for anyone...and I'm seeing Kerry falling in favor over the last couple weeks with things he's said, his wife has said...and what others close to him have said.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
HINT: Free speech means everyone gets to express their ideas, not just you.
It's amazing how slashdoters can be so fickle. Free speech is OK as long as it doesn't come from a republican.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Pre 1991? How do you know they aren't newer than that? What's the source?
Oh, right..you don't have one.
Half of them call themselves Witches or Druids and are diametrically to the accoutrements of modern society, such as hygeine.
If we had a Kelly in office that would be teh cool. Especially if that's just her stage name.
Hmm. Who else do we know that has such difficulty with the English language? Hmmmm...
COME ON OUT GEORGE we know it's you hiding behind that Sumbumass moniker!
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
It seems people have called those responsible for planning this liberals, but isn't it pretty clear they are anarchists?
Re-direct www.gop.com to www.democrats.org. Then the "hackers" who're barely above the creativity and intelligence of a slug will be DDoS'ing their own cause.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
How is this different from two groups protesting in the same place? One group is just louder than the other...and is drowning out their message. Should the louder group speak softer so that the other groups' speech is not hindered?
Blar.
Your post does not deserve to be modded up. You are simply a Bush hater who will take any chance to denegrate the great man. Like other demos you should stop foaming at the mouth and just vote against Mr. Bush on election day, if you are so inclined. I remember the army finding finding two stripped trucks carrying large fermenters and control equipment. Nerve gas shells have been found as part of road side bombs. There is every reason to believe there are more out there in the hands of terrorists.
an ill wind that blows no good
Problem is, the hacktivists don't see it that way. They probably don't even LIKE Kerry...many voters don't consider him progressive enough for their tastes and the anti-war folks can't like that he's a decorated veteran even considering his later protests.
They see themselves as being anti-Bush...a separate option from pro-Kerry. But many conservatives don't break it down so granularly...anybody on the other side is on the Other Side, and so we moderates voting Democrat this year are in the same boat as the draft dodging hippies and punk subversives.
In fact, one of the major problems I have with the modern Republican party is that they treat nearly everything as a binary issue. You're either for it or against it, you can't be ambivalent or vote to control the amount of something. In a way, this inflexibility makes the Republican party even more idealistic than the Democrats, and institutes a lot of what the Democrats claim is hypocrisy. How can you have a party that believes that parents should have the right to choose what school their children go to but that they're not bright not moral enough to choose whether or not to keep their child? Easy...each of these issues is broken down differently on that polar scale, and abortion falls cleanly into the "no fucking way" bin. Pragmatic decisions like keeping abortion legal, but dumping money into support and pro-child advertising campaigns to reassure scared young mothers that they don't have to kill their child, are seen as wishy washy liberalism -- even if such programs are met with greater success -- because they do not accept the artifical polarity forced onto the issue by idealistic conservatives. Yes, in a perfect world nobody would choose abortion and everybody would have a father and one parent would be able to be a primary caregiver. But these are cultural problems...and they are impossible to legislate.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The sad part (which is a good thing in this case) is that unless the mainstream media makes a big deal about this, 90% of people won't ever hear about this and it won't make a bit of difference.
You're right, enough sarin to kill around 30,000 - 40,000 people at a shot isn't a weapon of mass destruction. It's just a firecracker.
Never mind that the intelligence services of the Russians, French, Germans and Canadians all said Saddam had WMDs. Never mind that Clinton and Gore also said he did, and advocated his overthrow.
Never mind, because Bush is a weenie, right? He did it all himself! He made it up! Facts be damned.
This comment is so rich. I can only spend a little time on it, but here's a shot:
First, let's talk about references. When I say something like x is due to y, I like to back it up with something like according to z(www.z.com), you get the picture.
Now the "Germany KNOWS that Saddam did have WMD" statement sounds a little overstated - I would assume you are referring to international findings of that nature and not the Germans in particular?
On that note, almost every country has WMD right now. I think that makes the WMD case for war a bit daft, but that's just a personal opinion.
I'm at a bit of a loss on this statement:
"Are we to believe that in the interim period, Iraq secretly destroyed all of its remaining weapons, on its own, with no supervision or involvement of outside monitors, all with no proof or records"
Let's try CNN on this one. Looks like they were destroying them right up to the war.
Here's another idea I take issue with:
"it's not just about bombing people into oblivion; it's about encouraging free government with a free flow of information"
The question I have here is why, after over a year, have we still seen none of this come to fruition? Sure, we handed over power, but to an unelected government that we selected. Also, how did we contribute to the free flow of information by banning newspapers?
You go on to insist that this was somehow was positive for "most of the civilized world", but offer no rational for that logic. I think it's much safer to assume that the real winners here are defence contractors tied to the Whitehouse
"People think that the US just wants to arrogantly steamroll people..." Please don't talk about the actions of the state as the actions of the US. I'm a part of this great country, and like many others, I consider this war a shameful crime against humanity.
Then we have to deal with average people joining the Republican party just because it offers a sane choice compared to the nutjob left wingers. Hell, even crazies like Anne Coulter seem sane compared to hacker groups actively working to break the law in the name of democracy.
I'm sorry, but how can you honestly claim that these people, with the maturity level of 12 year olds, are somehow politically related to Clinton, Kerry, Cleland, Obama or anyone else who is taken seriously by Democratic Party? Janet Reno would have prosecuted these losers just as quickly as any other criminal. If you are willing to associate these idiots with the Democratic Party, then you also have to associate McVeigh, the KKK and the majority of right wing nuts listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center with the GOP. Besides, these little kids might be misguided about democracy, but the right just cares about power, which concerns me a lot more.
Personally, I'd rather be associated with script kiddies, who just need to be taken out behind the woodshed once to straighten them out, than racist wacko nutjob terrorists like the KKK and it's spinoffs. Who's worse, vandals or terrorists?
I'm a liberal because the Founding Fathers were liberals. I'm a liberal because this country is a liberal secular democratic republic. I'm a liberal because I believe in the American Revolution. I don't really give a rat's ass if someone else has managed to confuse their culture or religion with the business of the government of the US, it doesn't make their ideas valid. I'm a liberal because I believe that a political system of ideas must be internally logically consistent. Everytime I go applying scientific analysis to the historical record, to the original writings that formed the ideology behind the American Revolution, I come out looking liberal. I can logically and rationally defend my political positions and can do so consistently. That's why I'm a liberal, and anyone can try and criticize me for it all they want, but they still haven't beaten me in a debate. I'm a liberal, because intellectual conservatism is dead.
<troll>Oh, and I also think that Ayn Rand was an idiot and libertarians are, for the most part, the most politically naive group I've ever run across. They're much more fun when they're drunk and trying to defend their ideology, cause when they're sober, it's just sad</troll>
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Seems to be part of the mindset. Act out of emotion and with little or no thought.
You yourself are an idiot, but there's an underlying truth to what you're saying. The more grotesque, destructive and hate-filled RNC protests turn out to be, the more votes that get swung to Bush. We'll see how it plays out.
Why? What is the logic here?
It's really pretty simple. Voters may dislike conservatives and/or liberals, but they fear crazies.
Actions such as this, and the rantings of
sites such as moveon.org just reinforce the idea
that the Democratic party is infested with crazies.
Damn right. If they'd picked Dean I'd have been sending money and probably campaigning out on the streets... but Kerry's a lying two-faced weasel and fully paid for with corporate special interest money.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Shut down that evil Republican website...
Take Rush Limbaugh off armed forces radio...
Get Sean Hannity off the air.
Hey, if you don't like what they're saying, just shut them up, right?
The Cult of the Dead Cow's response to -
Client-side Distributed Denial-of-Service: Valid campaign tactic or terrorist act?
by oxblood ruffin!, cDc foreign minister - email oxblood@cultdeadcow.com, http://cultdeadcow.com
Key concepts: Electrohippies, anticorporatism, packet wankers, Denial of Service (DoS), Freedom of Expression, hacktivism versus [h]activism.
One Liner: The Electrohippies are trying to rationalize Denial of Service attacks and violate the First Amendment privileges of their opponents.
The Electrohippies have published an occasional paper (EOP) that asks whasional paper (EOP) that asks whether their recently published DoS application is a valid campaign tactic or a terrorist act. After introducing a quote from the New Testament that transmogrifies Jesus Christ into a packet wanker scourging the Internet of E-commerce, the question is then answered with an argument that crucifies all common sense. This essay will address several errors from the EOP that require correction.
[All quotes taken from the EOP and appear sequentially]
"As Jesus ransacked the temple in Jerusalem because it had become a house of merchandise, so the recent [DDoS] attacks on e-commerce web sites are a protest against the manner of its [sic] recent development".
This is the first and most egregious error that the Electrohippies make. It betrays their lack of understanding of hacker culture; it also creates a false bridge to their own anticorporate bias. As no statement of claim was made by the DDoS perpetrators, left-leaners, Adbuster sympathizers and wishful thinkers projected their own raison detre onto the event to construct an illusory foundation for their personal projects. In fact the DDoS attacks of early February were nothing more than packet wanking at its finest, or as hackers would say, going for the full woody.
It was irrelevant that the targeted sites were commercial and had e-commerce components. They could just have easily have been the Vatican, a Britney Spears fan site, or Aunt Beuears fan site, or Aunt Beulahs Jam page, that is, if those sites represented the same level of prestige and notoriety as the actual targets. Theres a lot of juice in the packet wanking world associated with taking down a large site. It has nothing to do with e-commerce no matter what the Electrohippies, The Village Voice or other projectionists wish were the case.
"Whatever the views of particular people about the development of e-commerce on the Net [sic], we must not ignore the fact that as another part of societys public space the Internet will be used by groups and individuals as a means of protest. There is no practical difference between cyberspace and the street in terms of how people use the Net [sic]".
E-commerce is a technology. It is used across the board by not-for-profit groups, independent record companies, and transnational corporations. It is this last group, one assumes, that the Electrohippies take issue with. But there is no effective difference between this method of exchange and the use of cash or credit off-line. By attacking e-commerce the Electrohippies create the impression that they are Luddites when what they mean to say is that they are anticorporate. Like many people, the Electrohippies have been confused by technology. They are trying to filter their agenda through the Internet rather than focussing on first principles.
The Electrohippies further compound their misunderstanding of the Inteunderstanding of the Internet by assuming that the same rules hold in the digital realm as they do down on the street. They do not. Where a large physical mass is the currency of protest on the street, or at the ballot box, it is an irrelevancy on the Internet. Or more correctly, it is not always necessary. Of course many people can make a difference on the Internet if one is talking about site traffic. High visitation boosts domain value; conversely its absence will decrease it. But to think that it takes a lot of people to execute an a
Go back and read:
0 00642
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=118384&cid=10
The entire earth, including Europe, the UN, and Iraq itself, believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD, pre-war. Europe had its own agenda for not supporting the war.
Even the anti-war crowd in this thread cites alternative media sources showing that Blix believed that Iraq had been "90 to 95%" disarmed. Great. That still leaves hundreds of tons of WMD unaccounted for, and a consistently uncooperative Iraq to boot, not to mention a Saddam Hussein who literally thought he was increasing his investment in WMD! Face it, Iraq had WMD, but for the 100th time, the war isn't about WMD in Iraq.
Perhaps Bush is smarter than we think, and he wrote those attacking scripts himself, as a way to provide him with an excuse to take control of the internet.
;-)
Nah.
I know that is exactly what I would do if some huge superpower was about to attack my country... I'd keep the weapons as long as possible, and then, at the very last minute, when it matters the most and everything all is about to be lost, I'd give the weapons away to someone else.
Ok, maybe not.
This is what happens when you block phone lines so Democrats can't get rides to the polls.
I was just going to mark you a troll but then I realized that you are an idiot. The best way to deal with idiots is to expose them. At least on my side of the aisle, we rely on logic, and we don't name-call without justification. Your side has been calling my side Nazis, terrorists, baby killers, etc, without any justification. So this may come as a surprise that I have real evidence to back up my claim that you're an idiot.
... say Iraq, and you had to hide a whole bunch of nuclear material and equipment, where would you hide it?
(a) Saddam used WMD against his own people and against Iran and possibly against our troops in Iraq in Desert Storm. But I guess the dead bodies and the sick troops isn't evidence of WMD. Maybe the tooth fairy killed them, right?
(b) Saddam himself admitted to having WMD and signed a treaty declaring that he had them and that he would get rid of them. The purpose of the inspection was not to find out if he had them, but for Saddam to prove to the rest of the world that he followed through. Saddam was supposed to show the world evidence that he kept his end of the bargain. Instead, he played games calling the investigators "spies" (DUH!) and refusing to abide by the terms he agreed to. Violation of a peace treaty is just cause for war in and of itself.
But I guess that signing a treaty is meaningless, at least is was for the Soviets (RIP). Over here, we believe that treaties and contracts and words mean things, and those meanings don't change over time.
(c) I guess the mobile chemical and biological labs aren't evidence of WMD. The fact that they were spotless doesn't trouble you? How many did he drive out of the country? Or do you refuse to see the evidence here too?
(d) Stockpiles of Uranium yellow-cake and evidence of purchases of yellow-cake from Nigeria were discovered. Even though Iraq has no civil nuclear program, and yellow-cake is used for building weapons or building reactors, I guess this isn't evidence of a nuclear weapon program.
(e) Libya had a nuclear weapons program. That took the intelligence community by surprise, at least the people that got out of the community before 2002. You'll note that Libya hadn't been acquiring yellow-cake, that Libya hadn't been buying equipment, and that Libya certainly had no reason to build up a nuclear program. They have given up on this whole "Hey, let's blow up Israel and America thing!"a long time ago because Khaddafi realized how futile it was long ago. So where did the program come from?
If you were a terrorist dictator in a country like
1. In your palaces. No, that's not any good, they'll find it right away, and they'll take it away.
2. Above ground somewhere in your country? No, that's no good. They'll scour the entire country, even if it takes them years.
3. Below ground somewhere in your country? No, that's no good either, they'll find it eventually.
4. In a neighboring country? Which one? Iran? No, we hate them and US is going to invade them one day anyway. Syria? No, they'll invade them one day soon, and they're a bunch of wimps anyway. Libya? Hey, there's an idea. Libya is kind of neutral, and the US will never go invading them, and we don't really have any ties with Libya, so who'd expect that?
Go ahead and ignore the evidence. It's your neck you are putting in the noose. I've watched the news quite carefully and I've seen reports of underground, operating nuclear breeder reactors. But the news never hit the mainstream. I've heard of stockpiles of those artillery shells filled with sarin and other nasties. But the news never hit the mainstream. I've seen reports of missiles and rockets and all kinds of stuff that have been marked by inspectors as "must destroy", but they weren't.
I imagine President Bush is sitting on the intelligence and evidence, waiting to pull it all out at the most opportune time. Most likely this will be an October surprise. As you run around yelling that "THERE'S NO WMD IN IRAQ
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
The viewpoints you mention have absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic party or Kerry; neither endorses such causes (any more than the White House endorses the "Swift Boat Veterans" attacking Kerry).
Not that I'm a particular fan of Kerry, but please, at least google for his post-Vietnam testimony, and perhaps your opinion of him will evolve somewhat.
a. For the rest of us, having our rights stripped away is more than something to be "a little annoyed" about. A fly buzzing around the room is something to be "a little annoyed" about.
b. You display precisely the kind of monomania that so many of us hate about the Republicans. "It doesn't matter that he stands for the opposite of what I believe in. He's a republican, I'm a republican so I'm going to vote for him"
HAHAHAHA
F911 is such propaganda and blatant lies it is unbelievable.
after watching that it makes me want to vote for bush because i know all of what was said is obviousely false. and basically if they couldnt find anything REAL to go after, there must not be much there
i am playing devils advocate, but seriousely, anyone who is swayed against bush because of F911, they shouldnt vote, becasuse they are idiots, stay home and get trashed on listerine instead. do yourself and your country a favor, we do not need more uninformed voters.
Please stop encouraging Democrats to act like responsible citizens.
~W.
The United States media likes to spin it like the Spaniards are being cowardly towards the terrorists, even when over 90% of the population was against the war in Iraq. In that election the Spaniards removed the people that lied to them and went against the will of the people. Hopefully in November, for the safety of the rest of the world, we will see the same happen in the United States.
Yup, you've hit the nail on the head. The big reason a lot of us don't vote Democrat is precisely because we don't want to be associated with the knee-jerk nutballs that have to have their voice heard above all others at any cost that call themselves Democrat. In fact, that's most of the reason Minnesota as a whole broke a long-standing tradition and voted a bunch of Republicans into office a couple of years ago - the DFL party failed to address issues and instead spewed rhetoric for their entire campaign. The Star Tribune had an article shortly after the election that summed it all up.
The problem is, right now I'd like to vote for a third party candidate. But there's so much rhetoric coming from the Democrats that I can't imagine Kerry even coming close to doing a competent job as president, and I'd rather face the evil I know (Bush) rather than the evil I think will be worse (Kerry) or selecting a third-party candidate I think will be better.
...wealthiest 2 percent of Americans...
... but they make more money AND they pay a higher percentage of their income in the first place!!!
... he pays double the percentage in tax that I do. But wait a minute, what's the tax in real dollars? 25% of 50k is $12,500 ... but 50% of $100k is $50k!! So Bob makes double what I make, but he actually pays 4 times what I do in taxes. Somehow that doesn't seem fair.
Arrrg!!! I'm going to strangle the next person who says this! Are you so brain-washed you can't go Google for some stats instead of simply regurgitating something Al Gore said in a debate 4 years ago?
I can prove your assertion wrong right away: I am not one of the wealthest 2% of Americans. In fact I chose to live in a smaller city, and work for a locally owned ISP and I make significantly less money than someone working for a real corporation. I got a tax cut. Sure someone making more money than me got a bigger cut
It amazes me how much the Dems have blinded people's eyes to the unfairness of the tax system. Sure on the surface it looks fair. If you're poor you pay a low percentage of your income. If you're rich you pay a higher percentage of your income. But wait, what's this little word 'percentage'? That kind of changes things. Here's an example. (round numbers to make this easier).
Say I'm making $50k a year, and Bob makes $100k a year. The government puts me in a tax bracket that says I need to pay 25% of my salary in taxes. Bob is in a tax bracket to pay 50% of his salary in taxes. Sounds fair
The Anti-Blog
the US hamstrung the weapons inspectors so badly that the ones that didnt resign came home.
Q. now why did the US NOT want the weapons inspectors to do their jobs?
A. Because they would have found nothing, as there was indeed nothing and Bush would have had no reason to pursue his pre-conceived war against iraq.
If you think that a single 10+year old shell (that was, incidentally, supplied by YOU, the U.S taxpayer) justified the invasion of iraq and the slaughter of several tens of thousands of people, then i pity you.
PS. tha anth, VX, and mustard gas was also supplied by the U.S (and france, ironically) and also has a vastly limited shelf life.
Wait though, the whole Alien hive mentality is fairly similar to conservative right-wing corporate America. And it appeared that the Predators had a somewhat progressive agenda, even giving up on a thousands year old tradition for the sake of the common good.
Crap, you've got my mind all wondering which side fits in with my own agenda, being a part of a crack team of Antarctict archeologists and all.
Or search lawfind. Keywords: Protest and "Time, place and manner" These sorts of restictions are nothing new and perfectly constitutional.
Illegal? No, it was approved/authorized by your friend and pal John Kerry (among others).
Clinton was a liar. That's the point. Everyone pointing at GWB as a liar should pay attention. Kerry is a liar. They're all liars.
Clinton committed adultery. As an elected official it is my business. And then he lied. And lied some more. Oh, and then when he wanted some money he "came" clean. Kudos to the left for taking the high road.
And the Swiftboat Vets aren't what they're claiming to be, that's the whole point. The only SV who actually had any real connection to Kerry, his CO, has actually recanted what he said. Which isn't surprising because it was sophestry to begin with. (as in "He must have forged the application for those Purple Hearts because I didn't sign them" - of course you didn't sign them, you're not a doctor dick-weed.)
From the WFB:
Argentina purchasing power parity - $432.7 billion (2003 est.), external debt $142 billion (2002 est.)
USA purchasing power parity - $10.98 trillion (2003 est.), external debt $1.4 trillion (2001 est.)
I'd say that pretty much sums it up...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
if the Dems had put up a better candidate
Here's one of the Conspiranoia theories.
The Clinton faction didn't want a good candidate, because then if the Dems win, then Hillary Clinton would not be able to run in 2008.
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
These proposed acts say volumes about the Far Left. Continually crying about their rights being suppressed, they take every opportunity to suppress the rights of others. It obvious that they have no more love of Free Speech (or Democracy) than the Taliban, Bin Laden, and other terrorists.
Illegal? What war is legal or illegal? He DID enforce the UN's last resolution on describing punishment if Iraq didn't start complying with the mandates of the UN (not to mention the terms of its surrender) that it hadn't done for about 12 years...if saddam had opened things up, verified destruction of old WMD (which he has had and used), and complied fully with UN requirements...he'd unfortunately still be in full power. Bush lying? Have you listened lately to the 9/11 and other commisions' findings? They said there was bad intelligence, but, it was the SAME intelligence th e rest of the world powers had and believed. If I were president, and my intelligence told me that someone was going to nuke me tomorrow...and I had Russia, Great Britan and a few others tell me the exact same thing...I'd definitely hit them before they hit me. This is an analogy of course, but, the same situation. Shit happens...and it did in this case. But, out of it...many good possibilities may come of it. Getting saddam out...giving democracy a real chance to happen in a Arab nation. But, lying? C'mon...if you're acting on the best intelligence that you believe to be true...no lies. Clinton? Yup...he lied...and was caught at it lying to a court. In this land, no matter who you are...you cannot do this. If Bush had been found to be lying for some reason, I'd be up in arms too, but, nothing points to him doing so.
"He's presided over a regime that's successively stripped away your rights and freedoms."
Gotta agree with you on this...the Rep's used to be more for individual rights, privacy, and fiscal responsibility, and they have none of this now. Trouble is...I don't see any of this on the Dem's side either...sigh
"And what has Kelly done?"
Who the hell is this 'Kelly'...and what is he running for?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If they didn't exist, the Republicans would have to invent them. What a justification for DMCA nonsense. Oh wait, the Democrats support all that too. Never mind.
Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
Until and unless Iraq-sponsored terrorists *actually* take out an entire US City with a dirty nuke or a gas attack, we should just sit around and do nothing.
Well, yes. I am not saying Iraq under Hussein had no intention of harassing the US all terrorism style, I am not even saying President Bush was incorrect in his assertion about WMDs. I am saying sometimes being right is no excuse. Historically, most Bad Guys (tm) in the world have eventually been judged Bad Guys (tm) partly because of their attacks on neighbors who had not attacked them. Many, many of these Bad Guys (tm) justified this by saying that the neighbors were a threat and he had to get them before they got him. Hussein invaded Kuwait, b/c according to him, they were somehow threatening the Iraqi way of life. Of course, we know it was b/c he was a Bad Guy (tm)and attempting to spread his own personal empire.
The point is, it becomes very difficult to convince the world at large that you are a Good Guy (tm) when you engage in tactics that are historically the province of Bad Guys (tm), even if you are doing so for the most noble and righteous of causes. And regardless of what some foolish Americans think (I am American, but I like to think not foolish), America is NOT powerful enough to tell the rest of the world to fuck off. If we piss off/scare enough other countries badly enough, we will lose. Unless of course, you are the kind of jackass that thinks nuking everyone on the planet (including us) is a victory.
Ah, but what is he lying about? I think you've been listening to the propaganda too long if you think Kerry is the 'ultimate traitor'; he has differeing views to be sure, but that hardly makes him a traitor. Can you point out why you think he's a traitor?
IMNSHO you guys need to tone down the rhetoric down there. You end up with right-wing liars and left-wing liars, and for some reason you think you have to swear allegiance to one of them...
Which is, of course, why you should go with Instant Runoff Voting. Have more than two REAL candidates! Never waste another vote! Wanna vote for Buchanan but would rather get Bush then Kerry? You can EXPRESS THAT!
Disclosure: I don't like Kerry, but I think Bush is a well-meaning but incompetent president, controlled by a group of vile sons of bitches. So feel free to call me a pinko commie Liberal and all that if you like, but there's no need to post it.
Anyway, I'm sure I've sown enough seeds of sedition here...
A vast majority of Spain's population was against the war to begin with. Of course they were going to vote out the government that didn't listen to anything they said. Not fighting a war that has nothing to do with you and is supported by shaky, constantly changing rationales is not "cowering in fear". It's sensible.
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
How much of a loser do you need to be to get 0wn3d by the World Bank?
I dunno, it seems to happen to poor third world countries all the time...
I'm pretty sure I don't agree with this tactic, but when you have organizations like the CSE out there trying to get Nader on the ballot for the sole purpose of taking votes away from Kerry, you have to wonder if this kind of behavior is here to stay.
Saw it on Daily Show.
Steve
I have some student loans left that amount to a few $K, however, I make a decent salary. Relative to my salary, my indebtedness is quite low. That's why I get offers for 0% rate credit cards all the time (I don't use credit cards and have no other debt). There are plenty of people in the world for whom a debt of a few hundred dollars would be overwhelming because of its relative size to its income.
The USA does have the biggest debt of any nation, however, relative to its GDP it isn't bad. Sweden for example, has a much, much greater debt to GDP ratio.
Not that I'm making excuses for the US debt, but it is misleading to claim the World Bank or IMF are being unfair to Argentina.
--- There are two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it
If it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President it'd be even worse.
Voting for anybody but the GOP candidate would be considering attempting to circumvent a security device...
"The dems distort the truth, yes, but nowhere near the magnitude that the right does. It's an admitted fact."
"The right" admitted this??? I didn't know "the right" had an official spokesman, nor did I know they had issued an offical mea culpa.
It's really unfortunate that the D's have been hijacked by adolescents and fruitcakes. America would be much better off with two serioua parties.
Bush ISN'T a lying two-faced weasel and fully paid for with Haliburton corporate special interest money?!?!? (Not to mention probably from Daddy calling in favours and digging into his own pockets...)
It seems to me politicians say whatever they can to appeal to the greatest number of people that make up the public to get into power. Beyond that OF COURSE they're liars, and I guess the only way to get what you want is to vote for the one who envisions a country closer to how you envision it - regardless of how you feel about the yutz.
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
If your explicit intent is to DDOS a website, then yes it is illegal. Moreover distributing a program like that is also illegal. This guy has made no secret of that and probably fucked himself if the FBI gets their hands on him.
Here's an anecdote: this is roughly akin to nailing two-by-fours across every door and window in my house so that you can prevent me from coming out and using my freedom of speech because you don't like the views I espouse. If you disagree with what I say, the appropriate response is to write, speak, and make your views known. It is not to simply silence the opposition by preventing them from being heard.
/. for that matter. Why, because being able to communicate is recognized as important to those two orgs. Why not the republicans? /. might like a link ;-]
Bad anology. Better, this is akin to going to a Presidential address in Ohio and speaking and making your views heard. Which DID get someone arrested DURING this administration.
If the republican party is incapable of handling bandwidth they should do something about it. In my opinion this is a legitimate form (though in bad taste because it does evoke free speech issues) of protest. I guarantee the democrats couldn't take down MS or hell
BTW, which site are they going to do this to. Some of us on
re: Jeb bush disqualifying valid black votes? SearchID=73181140138431&Avis=GS&Dato=20040721&Kate gori=LOCAL&Lopenr=207210328&Ref=AR
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel
re: Bush administration pushing for politically-timed terrorist catches
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5594697/site/newsweek/
re: latest on bush administration getting revenge via outting a US agent3 8-2004Aug15.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40
On a personal note: I can't understand why someone would vote for this president. I would love it if someone could convince me to vote for him in terms that don't include God or Guns.
Thankfully these days it's a lot harder to molest a child and never get caught. Teachers, pediatricians, and others will ask those in their care "were you ever molested" time and time again as they grow up, and eventually the victim will get the courage to speak up. Despite cases of some children deliberately lying and some having false memories, the new way of doing things is an improvement over the old way of "don't ask" and sweeping it under the rug if the child told.
If you throw out one government that lies to you, it will only be replaced by... guess what? ANOTHER government that lies to you. If you throw out one government that makes some mistakes, it will be replaced by... you got it... ANOTHER goverment that makes mistakes.
What we should be asking our candidates is not so much "how many mistakes have you made in your life", but "what exactly is it that you stand for?".
On the one hand, we have Bush; a guy who (most of the time) has a clear agenda, strong beliefs, and tends to stick to them (whether we like them or not). The end result is that he may do some things that we don't like, simply because he believes in them.
On the other hand, we have Kerry, a man who has demonstrated again and again that he will say or do anything, and take nearly any side of any issue to appeal to as many people as possible in order to get elected.
While this may seem like the perfect man for the job ("Finally! A president who will do what the PEOPLE want him to!"), this is also the epidomy of wishy-washiness.
Let's say you're leading a group of 5 people, and you're lost in the woods. Each one of them wants you to go in each of the 4 cardinal directions. "Go East!" says one. "No! Go North!" says another, and so on. Would you rather be led by someone who will make a decision, accepting the risk that goes along with that, or would you rather be led by someone who is so bent on appeasing all 4 people that he'll just stand there with his thumb up his butt and go NOWHERE?
A truly brave man is not afraid to take a stand in spite of what some people might think of him.
But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
When the hell are these stupid children (however old they may be) going to realize that pulling juvenile stunts like this is NOT the way to make your point. Nor is it a way to "win".
It merely points out (with glowing, thousand meter-tall indicators) exactly how stupid, petty, and childish you are. As well as aggravating your candidate when he realizes what a group of morons he has in his constituency and how badly they reflect on him and his political views and backers.
You want to effect REAL change?
SOCIAL ENGINEERING!
Script-kiddie bullshit like this only inhibits it.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This is idiotic.
You know, what you see in others is a projection of what you truly think of yourself.
The Democrat party has proven itself to be wacked out in a big way - just look at what they accuse Bush of doing.
It's interesting to note that Republicans approach Democrats as if they are reasonable, intelligent human beings. We try to reason with you and come to a reasonable compromise. It frustrates us to no end see that you are unwilling to hear our arguments, or unwilling to share the foundation for yours. People like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry confuse us. Why would someone do the things they do? It makes absolutely no sense to me or most people in the party.
I am a strong supporter of the Republican party. I canvas my neighborhood, hang out with the candidates, and am quite familiar with pretty much everyone I am going to vote for. I've worked with the people that work in these organizations. The Republican party (at least in my corner that I can see) is the absolutely most honest and up-front party I have ever seen. They don't do things like this. They just go out and say what they think.
I know that sounds funny, but it's true. The things that the candidates say to people like me is exactly what they say to the news or in speeches in public or in debates. They don't change their story or position based on their audience.
The other part of your post is the insinuation that Bush would manipulate the alert level based on political expediency. How do I respond to that? It's like saying, "Bush is an alien from Jupiter who has come to eat our babies and rape our women." The charge is so outrageous and so wild that it goes beyond comprehension why anyone would think that.
But here is logical proof that you are absurd in your insinuation. There are literally thousands of people who know what goes into making the decision to raise or lower the level. I'd say about half aren't Bush supporters - they are just doing their job. (If you believe that everyone in the administration, CIA, Homeland Security, military, and FBI are Bush supporters, then you live in a fairy-world.) If there was any evidence of Bush arbitrarily raising or lowering the terror level, then it would come out in the news right away. But there isn't. So there's no whistle-blowers, because there's nothing to blow the whistle on.
This is just like the assertion made by some democrat senators (the whacko kind, like Kennedy, Rockefeller, et al) that Bush pressured intelligence agencies to produce evidence justifying a war in Iraq. If Bush had done so, you think just one or maybe more of the hundreds of officers interrogated would've said so. Instead, they all said the exact opposite. They all said, in general, "Our orders were to find the truth, even if it means finding evidence contrary. We were not pressured by anyone from the administration to produce a specific kind of evidence or to falsify our reports. Our only pressure was to get more evidence and to get more accurate evidence - even if it was contrary to what Bush supposedly wanted."
If there was just one agent who had been pressured by the administration, you'd think you'd know his name by now. But there isn't. Because there wasn't.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
This is utterly disgraceful to use the word 'hacker' this way. My views mirror those of most hackers and are quite well known. This is low. Hacktivists are nothing more than mouse clickers on low bandwidth connections. This is lower than script kiddies.
I am 100% against Bush, as are a sizable majority of Europeans. It is nice to see Americans turn against him and he'll do himself in without the help of hacktivists and violent protesters. There are simply better ways to replace George W. Bush!
Is this the new liberal idea of free speech and choice? Block people from seeing Republican websites, and block them from entering Republican headquarters?
I know it's not all liberals/Democrats, but some of them are completely insane. If they're not actively blocking Ralph Nader from being on the ballot (after all, nobody should have any choices), they're funding smear books and movies. I constantly hear about this "Republican attack machine," but honestly all I ever see is a liberal attack machine.
Okay, so this is off-topic.
I know, i know, flambait me, I take it. :)
It was just too good of a frase to remain silent
I think the Alien hive mentality is far closer to the faction of Liberals who slather the words "discrimination", "racism", and "hate speech" on anything they don't agree with.
However, when it comes down to it, the terms Liberal and Conservative do not accurately describe members of each political group. There are wide varieties of each. Unfortunately, each side seems to be defined by its extremists.
It's arguable that the Iraq war made the jihad problem worse, but I don't think Saddam's regime could be described as "solidly secular" in 2003. Saddam tried to kick off a jihad by lobbing missiles at Israel in 1991. Since then he gave refuge to Islamist terrorists. He paid money to Hamas. Saddam might have been a secular leader, certainly his interests were in secular things, namely his own power and wealth. But Saddam used jihad when it suited him, and I don't think that he would have thought twice about endangering his secular credentials if he thought it convenient to give aid to Al Qaeda. The state controlled media openly praised Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Seems to me that Saddam was keeping his options open on that front.
To take the example case of sarin:
1. That amount really is unaccounted for. Could some of it have been destroyed without UN or US knowledge? Sure. Was this likely the case with all of it, given that Saddam believed he was reinstituting WMD programs after 1998? Unlikely.
2. All of any particular WMD needn't have been "moved" anywhere. Saddam had a minimum of a decade to do things in secret, because he very rarely fully cooperated with inspectors. I'm not implying all of it was moved to Syria in the weeks before the war. The point is that it's not accounted for, and it's most likely NOT destroyed. Also, you're wrong about Sarin: it is a liquid, that can be evaporated into a vapor and be spread into the environment. Sarin would likely also be moved in tanker trucks, not barrels or cylinders. Sarin weighs about 1.1g/cm^3, meaning that about 23 tons of Sarin could fit on a 10000 gallon tanker, reducing your estimate by a factor of 23. Also, again, the sarin needn't necessarily to have been moved, nor necessarily by truck.
3. Iraq DID have WMD. Hell, the US GAVE them a good chunk of their WMD capability! The whole globe, including the US, Europe, many of Iraqs neighbors, and Iraq itself, believed Iraq to be in possession of WMD. What happened to all the weapons that are unaccounted for? Why do you ascribe only pure motives to Iraq, and evil ones to the US? That's a little twisted, isn't it?
I only see Fox when it's on the TV in the gym. It's not like I seek it out.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Vote for Bush or Baby Jesus will Shoot You.
This is to say nothing of the civil liability a person could incur. The RNC has deep pockets, far deeper than some script kiddie has.
If everyone who felt like you rose up and voted for Badnarik, we'd all win.
Although I'm voting for Bush, actually, and want him to win out of the four. I'll reevaluate again in four years. Unless the parties fundamentally realign, I can't see myself seriously considering anyone other than Republican or Libertarian.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
1) I just wanted to stress that There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking for help.
You're correct. There is also nothing wrong with saying "So you don't want to help? Fuck you then." and then going off and doing it all by yourself. Asking for help is not asking for permission.
2) It builds friendships and trust between great nations of the free - kinship between the good guys.
Some of the good guys are just that, good guys. Some of the good guys are now kind of wishy-washy. Some of the good guys turned out to be just downright smarmy and two-faced back-stabbing sons of whores.
3) Less war would be good for all, and anyone who votes for more war is going to invite it home inadvertently.
Yes, less war would be good for all but sometimes it is necessary to keep the bad guys in check. Most of them don't respond well to diplomacy and when you get tired of walking softly it is time to take off the kid gloves and apply the big stick liberally.
As for inviting it home inadvertently, that does happen from time to time. A couple of countries recently did that. They're now under new leadership. More often than not though it is a matter of "Look what followed me home and shat on the rug."
kerry is the guy for sure. he'll bring jobs back to america. i wonder if he'll talk his wife into moving her pickle factories back... oh wait, she moved them to mexico during clinton's regime, so that was ok.
A lot of these anti-bush people don't even know what they are talking about. They let the media tell them how to vote. Bush is a bad public speaker, I'll give you guys that, but he is no idiot. I didn't know idiots get degrees and MBAs from Havard and Yale. Go figure.
f ormation About Moore
I also find it funny that Democrates don't even know what Kerry stands for (kind of like he doesn't even know what he stands for) but they again let the media tell them what to do. These are probably the same people who think Michale Moore is a genious, although he doesn't even make documentaries, since documentaries by definition are TRUE.
http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.htmlIn
However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.
He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained.
Clear enough?
Considering that Dems have been traditionally socialist-ish and Repbs have traditionally been, well, I'll not say progressive, but certainly individualist. Dem socialist agenda fits the Alien hive mentality a lot more closely than does any Repb agenda.
BUT, considering that neither party is different from the other these days....Kerry talking about tax cuts, Dubya spending money willy nilly. Meh...f em both.
The Annenberg foundation did a study revealing that about 80% of the Washington Press corps vote Democrat. Figure 10% Repub, 10% Green/Libertarian/Whig/whatever and your 8:1 is about right.
I've always suspected that such extremists are opposition catspaws anyway.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I'm sorry, I think what you MEANT to say was one full tour of duty, and then another 4-month tour where he was DECORATED FIVE TIMES.
This is versus a president who got into the TANG to avoid conflict and then went AWOL - who do you consider more truthful? A decorated vietnam vet, or an AWOL non-combatant?
Some white hat hacker - please take the above site down - it will provide Bush with proof to invade all these countries.
Last time I checked, you were supposed to vote for the person who you think could lead the country the best, and be the best president. This has nothing to do with what their supporters are like.
Even if all the democrat/liberal supporters were horrible horrible people, I'd still vote for the candidate because/if I agree with their policies. I woudl just avoid the supporters...
If you can't separate the candidates and his/her policies from his/her party and how the party (or seemingly associated) parties act, perhaps you shouldn't bother voting.
I know that we have closed several terrorist training camps. And a terrorist *IS* a WMD!
It gets even deeper than that...
Predators use weapons, so they're Republicans.
But Aliens seem to dislike having their fetuses aborted, so that makes them Republicans...
Aliens make others bear their children, so they're Democrats
Looks like Predators are more Republican than Aliens are... Anyone got any more?
--- This
cue up the crickets sound effects. launch the tumbleweeds.
you won't get a response because there are none.
I vote for staying home and eating Cheetos!! Mmmmm.
I'm not a lawyer. Never claimed to be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
limiting government's ability to control speech is the most usual case, but what free speech is really about, is limiting any forcible non-consensual censorship. Any time someone says "shut up or be hurt", and you didn't give them advance permission to do so, free speech is being violated.
Why not just go out and stand in front of the RNC's headquarters and block people from entering? Because you can't. Ever heard of "free-speech zones"? Protestors are fenced in (see: DNC 2004 or, at the very least, fenced off into areas where visibility is low. This has been happening ever since Bush took office. Wherever he travels, protestors are limited to these free speech zones, where Secret Service agents line the perimeter and arrest anyone who leaves the area (charging them with federal trespassing). Even before 9/11. I've been there, I've seen it happen in very low-profile towns/situations.
Apparently you missed my follow-up statement. See above.
Hmmm... why does that sound familiar?...
:-)
Because you are an optimist
Is signing up for domestic service to avoid foreign service, and then going AWOL for a year better than volunteering to go under fire, saving the life of a person you hardly know, being honorably discharged, and then speaking out as a conscientious objector having witnessed it first hand?
Why do so? If you agree with the RNC, then because you agree with them. If you don't, then thinking along the lines of, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it," would be the impetus.
Would the RNC accept help from fair minded netizens (yeah, I still like that word)? Would /.ers offer?
But fine, if we want to play that game...
The wack jobs that bomb abortion clinics are a glowing indication of the inability of the right to address problems without resorting to bombs!
Oh I see. So while it is OK to want to travel on an airliner anonymously without showing identification it is not OK to post on /. anonymously.
Funny how so many people want to have their cake, eat their cake, and get the cake for free.
Kelly? You must be asian.
"John Kelly will have the flied lice!"
"No Longer A Superpower"???
What in the world are you talking about? We are more powerful now in relation to the rest of the world than ever before in our brief history. The rest of the world is scared to death of us because there is noone that can stand against us (In the recent past, the Cold War kept us balanced in opposition to another Super Power). In fact, just because of the US' economic, technological, and military power the rest of the world is being compelled to join forces as a precaution (eg European Union), and they always assume we're just in it for us.
It's important to note that the US is also the most benevolent country in terms of Humanitarian Aid. For instance, our giving to the UN AIDS CAP in 2003 (http://www.un.org/depts/ocha/cap/appeals.html) is more than the next 10 donors combined. Only 4 very small countries gave more as a % of GDP.
We as citizens of the United States have had a long history of being very very benevolent to the world. That comes directly out of the population's Christian roots. As we lose that, and as the Radical Left seeks to squash every expression of Christianity from the public view, we will become a lesser nation.
Keep on thinking this way, I see you enjoy being manipulated by the government :)
No Spaniard should die America, let Americans themselves fight for the money of their leaders!
you have no heart; if you are not conservative by the time you are forty you have no brain.
-Winston Churchill
There is no better way than this to get the FBI and or CIA on your ass for cyber-crimes. I think these kiddies have put too much stock in the hacker manifesto, which btw was meant to be a joke!
Pinging a server isn't illegal either, but it becomes so when you do it in such a way (volume and repitiion) to disrupt traffic
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
This may not be illegal or fattening, but it's JUST PLAIN IMMORAL.
Deliberately keeping others from using a resource when you have no intention of really using it is just plain disruptive. Unlike people who sacrifice their time to actually protest in the streets, these people aren't sacrificing much of anything. This makes their action IMMORAL.
If they want to take the moral high ground and have a similar effect, have every one of them take an hour out of their day to write a unique, from-the-heart, letter to George Bush, then email them to his campaign at an agreed-upon time. Instead of email, they can use the "comment" box on the campaign's web site or post to the campaign's blog if they choose. Either way, it's the moral equivalent of everyone taking time out of their lifes to show up at his campaign HQ at 9AM to deliver a message.
The bottom line:
If you disrupt others without making your own sacrifice, you lose moral authority and your Political Karma goes way down.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Better to have never served at all, than to quit like a coward after four months."
The truth is that hundreds of civilians and many a soldier from Spain have died because we supported the US, however not a single US solider has ever died for supporting Spain. And with "thankful" comments like the ones uttered by the previous poster, I sincerelly hope not a single drop of Spanish blood is ever wasted for America ever again.
For a preson coming from a country than one hundred years ago declared war on us, and than fifty years ago decided to starve us to death you certainly have some brass balls asking our soldiers to die for your comfy little behind.
Next time you go and pick up the gun and you get your butt over there... is this what the "land of the brave, home of the free" has de-evolved into? "better to have never served at all" LOL!
While I do realize this was meant to be a joke, it's funny how people generalize the Republican party to be a bunch of rich people while ignoring the financial status of the Democrats. People act like John Kerry is some poster boy for the poor American while Bush sits in his palace rolling in money. The fact of the matter is that John Kerry is a billionaire who dwarfs Bush's net woth many many times over. Have you seen where the guy lives? His many houses/mansions? Where he goes for vacations? John Kerry and the Democrats are no poor man's hero, I can guarantee you that. Even Cheney has nothing on this guy.
I would agree with you, except shouldn't it be "Kerry" instead of "Kelly"?
A far more useful thing to do would be to follow the delegates and post pictures of them partaking of the hundreds of extra sex-workers who have flooded into the city for the convention. Show the Republican "family values" for what they really are. Though there are probably laws against THAT as well...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I was in France when the Spain held the elections. The terror plot worked (turned the elections), but not in the way the terrorists had planned.
I listened fully to the coverage on BBC Radio and France Info, and I found that it was the media, not the government who suggested ETA (Basque) links. The government higher-ups stayed quiet while the pundits decryed ETA's tactics. Of course, it doesn't take a terrorist expert to realize that ETA always claims responsibility, and did not in this case.
Also, my firend in Syria told me that at that time (while the investigation was unpublished), the Arab media was pointing their fingers saying, "See, it's not always Islamic extremists..."
When the report was finally published, the opposition was *very* quick to accuse the government of hiding the Al Qaeda ties, thus deceiving the people concerning the risks of participating in Iraq. Without time to properly challenge the accusation, the people voted the opposition into office.
Now, if the government had meant to blame ETA to keep the heat off them concerning Iraq, why did they release the info a couple of days before the elections? They could have kept it hidden for another day or two, no? Also, as I said before, the media was largely responsible for the accusation of ETA, and then for the accustation that the government had tried to keep the truth form the public.
In the end, the terroists succeeded, but only through the media and the oppositon party. I think this is a small-scale preview of what could happen in the US.
Large, competitive media, more concerned about ratings/profits than truth? Check.
Partisian warfare? Check.
What is truely scarry is that someone could be so politically spiteful of another party that they would help people inciting violence acheive their goals, if it hurt the other party.
The more time goes by, the less I like partisian politics.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
It's the equivalent of showing up at a rally with supporters and having them all chant loud enough for the speaker's message to be obscured. It seems like a perfectly legal form of nonviolent protest, when associated with political parties. Commercial entities have a legal entitlement to their website not being attacked like this, but I think for non-profit organizations, especially with regards to politics, it should be OK.
stuff |
He responded to Bush's challenge a few weeks ago and stated he would vote for the War in Iraq again if given the chance.
This is why he gets accused of pandering. It's unclear what his positions on anything are. All I really know is that he's a Vietnam veteran, since he brings it up approximately every 30 seconds.
register their [your] protest with their [your] vote.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
What a baseless crap statement. Which party is more tolerant in regards to flag-burning?* Which party lead a coordinated effort to jam the phone lines of the other party during "get out the vote" calling efforts on election day 2002? Which party helped back a massive campaign to force theater owners into not showing F9/11? Yeah, thought so.
* I proudly served as a United States Marine and nothing breaks my heart like seeing the United States flag burned, but I also understand that giving others the right to burn the flag is what makes this nation so great.
-- jimmycarter
I'm NOT saying that we should stop "Islamic" people from being in positions of power. I'm talking about Panislamic radical fundamentalism: the idea that the entire middle eastern region should be one single Islamic state, with a code of government not unlike that of the Taliban. Do you understand that? If you're still saying there's no reason we should let that rise, then I guess we simply don't see eye to eye on this. I'm not saying we should go on some kind of off-the-wall Christian Crusade. (Also, re: separation of church and state. Please. Just because Bush has some faith-based initiative garbage doesn't mean separation of church and state has gone out the window. If anything, there are MORE court rulings and related decisions doing things like removing nativity scenes from public grounds, removing ten commandments displays from court buildings, and the like. No reason to be paranoid when, well, there's no reason to be.)
Regarding waste, yes, we are a wasteful society. But I also said there's no reason a Suburban can't get 40mpg (or more). TODAY. (FYI, in MY2007, GM is rolling out full-hybrid GMC Yukon/Yukon XL and Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban platforms with a 5.3L V8 with Displacement on Demand, which disables cylinders dynamically when not needed, and two 30kW electric motors, increasing fuel efficiency by 40%. An aluminum frame could bost savings even more.) As for full-electric vehicles, well, this currently just shifts pollution elsewhere (though it does admittedly reduce oil needs, which may be a more pressing concern).
I do want us to be smart about all this, and whether any president is smart or dumb, there's a literal army of committed and extremely educated people within government, some part of the partisan system and some not, who will do the bidding of the current administration. I do think the "blessed society" idea with regard to America is bullshit. But I don't think that anyone has the "ensure mideast oil pricing stability OR look for alternative fuel sources" idea...we're doing both. And the former is absolutely critical, even if we went full-on with alternative energy research from this second forward. Let me put it this way: I don't see it as an either/or proposition, as some on both sides do. I see it as BOTH.
Using his logic he's probably one of the "hackers"
I think your analogy comparing the President to a woods guide is a bit too simplistic. There is not one absolutely correct path to take in international politics, such as there is in the woods.
Would you rather be led by someone who will make a decision, accepting the risk that goes along with that
The implication being that Kerry would NOT make decisions? Seriously, WTF? I doubt that the man will get in office and do nothing.
A truly brave man is not afraid to take a stand in spite of what some people might think of him
Again, the implication being that Bush is such a man. The problem here is, the President is not SUPPOSED to do what he thinks is right despite what some people think, if by "some" you mean "the majority of the American". The President is supposed to represent the will of the people. And maybe Bush does, I am a rather cynical person who would not be surprised to find that the majority of Americans are unsophisticated zealots who think that unthinking devotion to a religious (ie. concerned w/ the spiritual, not material) code is a good roadmap for politics. Especially in dealing w/ people of other religions.
I think you need to do more listening. You seem to have learned about the Republican party from their enemies.
(1) Bush may have speech impediments, but so did Enoch and Moses. If you take the time to listen to Bush's message and see what he things and he feels, you'd be surprised at how absolutely brilliant he is. Instead, you focus on his speech impediment and you can't get into his message.
(2) Sure, let Ashcroft speak. Maybe he can teach you a thing or two about real justice, how to end the racial divide and the cultural divide in America, how we can really change the tide of the sickening plague of divorce and marital problems and hopefully encourage people to get and stay married for the right reasons. I believe Ashcroft is one of the great visionaries on the cultural / religious debates. He is redefining what it means to be a religious, yet tolerant and just, public official.
You have no idea what the Republican party stands for, because you get all your information second-hand. We stand for racial equality. We stand for the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr. We worked to get his ideas implemented - it was the Democrats who obstructed us in trying to end segregation. We stand for now trying to get the minority populations on equal footing with the majority and successful minority population, by encouraging them to start their own businesses and own their own homes, and by learning how to manage their own life so that they are independent of the government and can get along on their own.
We stand for women's rights. That was one of the reasons why we invaded Afghanistan. One of our priorities is to encourage a society in the middle east where women aren't animals but are citizens with every right a man has. We believe in protecting the family so that women can live in a postivie environment, and that if women choose, they can stay home and raise their children and teach them whatever they want to teach them without impedence from government schools.
We stand for educational freedom. If you are poor, you end up with no choice but to attend the local public school. We want to change that. We believe that especially the poor and disadvantaged deserve a chance to get a better education. We believe that government shouldn't force them into a particular school, especially if that school is failing. Instead, give them a choice. Let them go to the local Catholic school, or private school, and let them have the same access to education that rich Democrats enjoy.
We stand for the end of Government tyrannyin the private industry. For too long, government has been forcing its hand and making private individuals do things that make no sense and has a negative effect. Why not let private individuals figure things out on their own? Why do we chain them down with endless, contradictory regulations? We believe that the people in the United States are far more intelligent than we have given them credit. Free the people, and let them take the credit for their work, rather than taxing them to death and implementing expensive, useless and corrupt government programs.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
(nt)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Hey, I want the incumbent out of office but this is still wrong. Even if it isn't a flat-out DDOS if the net result is still the same there's really no difference. I'd rather let everybody publish their views and positions and let the people decide. Attempting to sabotage the means for anybody to communicate their messages simply contradicts the whole intent of the process.
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
you're right;
and I predict that those black hatters are going to come cry in a YRO slashdot submission when they get on the CIA shitlist for it, too.
hmm.. saddam is the lessor of 2 evil because the way he came to power. I can tell here that having an inteligent discusion with you is pointless. Your still not over the way the election system works and that bush won.
Also you calling the iraq war, an ilegal war. Well here is another unsuported liberal fan fair. There is nothing ilegal about it. You say he lied about going to war, were did bush lie? There is nothing he has said that was a lie. There has been inteligence reports (that every one including John kerry from the senate inteligence comity) belived to be true that is questionable or found to be not true today but thats not a lie is it?
As far as freedoms being striped away? some argue that clinton did just as much with the DMCA that kerry supported but who is keeping count. we are talking about the lessor of 2 evils not comparing a sun of a bitch to some angelic asshat.
I'm waiting to hear what you say bush lied about. I don't think you cand find a legitamit outrite lie he has said. but if you can then post it so i can see it.
Now you speak of a tax surplus that doesn't exist todyay. Well if you were above a morons inteligence you would know that the buget surplus was gone when clinton was in office and the surplus was fake to begin with. I'm not saying it didn't exist, i'm saying the reasons it existed cannot and didn't sustain past the one or two years it had happend. The reason for this? clinton offered the roth ira and a conversion from regular ira plans that allow people to pay taxes when converting over a four year scheme. This extra tax that should have been colected when the holders are retired and withdrew income was instead colected in a lump sum when it wasn't expected to be. Also clinton decreased (gasp clinton gave a tax cut!) the capitol gains taxes from almost 40% to 15 percent or your anualy income tax percentage rate depending on how much it was if you held the investment over a year. This inspired alot of people to sell holdings they have been waiting on for years and created a increased tax flow that would not be sustainable in the long term.
Further more i think you are misunderstanding what the tax surplus was. It doesn't mean we had paid of our debt and had money left over. It only mean we spent less money in one physcal year then we have budgeted to spend. Once the extra tax revenue was gone so is the budget surplus. Clinton lost this surplus in his last year in office like his ecomemy went into the tanks and people want to blame that one bush too. It is widly known that the econemy is in as good of or better shape then when Bush took office.
Now finally, somethign that really iritates me when stupid "i hate bush" dumbass cock jockeys go around and claim that bush is only lining the pockets of his cronies (haliburten) Why don't you rethink that and call them clintons cronies. After all clinton is the one that gave them the contract (and john kerry as well as other senators voted for it too) that allows haliburton to go into government contract situation without an open bid process. Yes, thats right, the choice to use haliburton in iraq was clintons doings. Halibuton was contracting with the government since before reagon was president. as a reward for this contract services under clintons watch, halibuton was awarded a open contract to perform work at the lowest bid before an open bid proccess could take place. What this means is, If somethign needs done and it need to be done right now, they call halibuton to start it. Then they do the open bidding that normal government contracts enjoy. After the lowest bid is excepted, halibuton only gets paid what person actually getting the job gets. In some cases halibuton os the lowest bidder or actually the best person for the job and get the job. This has been going on since before bush was even in office and nothign has changed. If anythign bush is lining the pockets of clinton's cronies.
Why your searching for some truth try pulling your head out of your ass and looking at the facts. Also spell checking leave clowns liek you with nothign legit to complain about.
Suddenly, it's not illegal to purposely reload a page over and over in order to take down a website? That's like asking, "what's wrong with pinging someone?" When you DDOS a site, you're using legimate traffic methods to saturate their pipes and take them down. Give me a break.
If these were conservatives taking down the DNC website, you'd see a lot of viewpoints around here changed. Probably would see articles in the L.A. Times as well--"Conservative Hackers Attack Democratic Websites." I doubt you'll hear a peep about this. Hell, the only real coverage you could find about the laughable, fenced-off "free speech zone" at the Democratic Convention was Fox News, and most liberals hate them anyway, despite not citing a single reason or example. This will fade away, and we'll continue to hear about the supposed "Republic attack machine" despite all the liberal smear books and movies and Hitler ads out there.
You know, this is so typical of the bullshit on /. that it's hardly worth commenting on, but I'll try anyway.
Somebody ALLEGES that the Republicans might do this or that, when they've done nothing of the sort, and the post gets modded up +4, Insightful.
Welcome to Slashdot, where you aren't judged on your ACTUAL RECORD, but on some bullshit we make up.
What is the intent of running the reloading script?
Think a judge will say "yeah they didn't do it with any malice, with intent to cause harm."
Anyone that runs will have a good chance to have the feds showing up on their door.
If this happens you can bet your last dollar that there will be new laws in-acted. What do politicans do best? Protect themselves first society be damned.
That's 17 shells containing sarin.
And, yes, one shell containing sarin is a WMD. Just like a nuclear bomb is a WMD.
From the WFB:
Argentina purchasing power parity - $432.7 billion (2003 est.), external debt $142 billion (2002 est.)
USA purchasing power parity - $10.98 trillion (2003 est.), external debt $1.4 trillion (2001 est.)
I agree with all your figures apart from the USA external debt (the national debt value quoted in the WFB is for 1995 -- where did your value of $1.4 trillion come from?). Consider the following report:
That paints a rather different picture, doesn't it? Based on these figures, the USA appears to be more overextended than Argentina, not less.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Give it up with this "liberal media" bullshit. Good lord. The "liberal media" acted so liberal in the run-up to war that the liberal editors of the two most liberal of the liberal papers, the NYTimes and the Washington Post, felt the need to publically apologize in recent months for not doing their jobs, and instead acting like pseudo-patriotic parrots of administration propoganda - and doing so very willfully. There was a great study showing that during the war anti-war pundits on all networks together (including PBS) got one-twenty-fifth the air time of pro-war pundits. That would be 1:25, not 8:1. Real "liberal" there.
If you could see past that log in your eye, you'd realize there's nothing liberal about the media anymore. Virtual all media in this country is owned by a handful of large corporations. They look out for #1. CNN viewers may have been slightly less misinformed than FNC viewers, but CNN still beat the war drum just as hard, and have been just as soft in criticizing the administration since.
That guy went into a rant on the Defcon stage and got pulled off for the same comments. He must really be angry- but angry and dumb is no way to go through life. A FBI gun at your head hurts more than a packet.
He should keep his mouth closed if he's gonna do this stuff. It's a felony now in this crappy country. And having it run by Democrats won't make it less of a felony. Or less of a country of crappy laws.
In effect, they are trying to recreate the /. effect. Does this mean /. is illegal?
1. Maybe so, but only because we give our cash to practically every other country in the world as 'aid', and
2. We wouldn't be if those loser countries would ever pay back any of their debts to us, dating back to WWII and before!
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
Where are my mod points when I need them.
That links shows how much they've raised in campaign donations. It is indeed true that Bush has raised more in campaign donations. What the previous poster was saying, however, is that Kerry's personal wealth is much greater than Bush's personal wealth.
Some ballpark figures for assets, drawn partly from here:
Kerry (incl. wife): $500 to $600 million
Cheney: $17 to $85 million
Edwards: ~$19 million
Bush: $6 to $14 million
So as you can see, even if those numbers are off by a lot, Kerry is still the richest by far, and Bush is the poorest of the four.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I think you need to do some research on the subject if you think what is presented in F911 is lies. There are plenty of proof that it isn't lies. Just sorry for you becoz you don't believe in a person like Michael Moore and automatic believes that what he creates is lies. Maybe if it was someone else that created a movie like that you might would re-consider calling other people idiots just becoz you do not believe in one person. You made yourself look like a fool.
This is one of the stupidest reasons I've ever heard for wanting Bush to win. Does this mean you prefer the theocrat "Bush is a moral man" or "The rich are the only ones who innovate and create jobs" type idiots who are voting for Bush? Maybe you support the Neil Boortz "we should turn Najaf into a glass parking lot" type of idiots that support Bush.
If you make political choices based on the fringes of the political parties, you should be voting Democrat, they at least know how to marginalize their loonies, the GOP let's em run the asylum. And how is this opinion Insightful? I'd rather see Kerry win because 9 out of 10 KKK members support Bush? You vote based on ignorant Bubba's in white robes? Maybe the GOP will learn when Bush loses? These aren't serious political strategies, they're akin to stoner dorm room conversations.
This is why the GOP fails to impress me, I've yet to see a serious person with real ideas or any grasp of reality claim that Bush is a good president. This buffoon is quite literally, the absolute worst Presidential Administration this country has ever had. This guy is worse than Nixon, worse than Jackson, worse than Grant or Hoover. He makes Wilson look like a saint. I want this whole crowd of incompetent fools gone. They aren't worth the tax dollars wasted on them.
Every problem that has arisen from Bush policies has been predicted. No result that the Bush Administration claimed would come from their policy has actually happened. More often than not, the results their critics have predicted have come to pass. These idiots are seemingly incapable of rational thought or any grasp of reality. Their tax policies have failed to create jobs. Their energy policies haven't done shit for foreign dependence or better energy markets. We have no coherent strategy for dealing with terrorism. "YeeHaw" is not a foreign policy. Wages are falling, jobs are leaving and there are no new industries or markets replacing what's disappearing. We are going further into debt as a nation. This administration has been squandering every great resource we've given it access to. They've squandered our reputation internationally. They've squandered our wealth, and they squander our environment.
These people are cultural bigots who don't grasp anything outside their own limited experience. They believe they have some sort of monopoly on truth and are willing to do anything to gain power. Our system was set up so that the people would have the ability to stop individuals just like this. The Bush Administration advocates for every scenario our Founding Fathers warned would destroy the Revolution. The Bush policies encourage concentration of wealth, mingling of culture and religion with government, and they can't keep state secrets, SECRET.
Between the Valerie Plame incident and that Khan computer guy, who was a freaking Pakistani mole, these guys might as well give Osama a swipe card for the Pentagon. They are incompetent, screw em, I'll take any marginalizable loonies over these nut jobs with power any day.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Wouldn't eliminating the Republican's "free speech" on the web via DDOS attacks basically amount to cyber-terrorism?
Apparently the rationale is that another person is only open-minded if they think the same way as the first open-minded person. And if that isn't the case then, well, they're a bigoted Nazi and warrant being shouted down.
Hint! Hint! You wouldn't want Bush to go for more governmental control of the Internet in order to fight all kinds of cyber-terrorism, wouldn't you?
Too late. That was already planned at the last Rightwing Conspirary meeting.
And - if this really hits the Republicans, it won't be long before Bush's spin-doctors claim the whole idea was, in fact, initiated by Al Qaeda members.... ...remember how, in front of the UN in the run-up to the Iraq war, a couple of trucks in the middle of the desert were "mobile bio weapon research/development platforms"? (Exactly those that, like all the weapons of mass distruction, can't be found now)...
Throwing together Al Qaeda and Iraw randomly like that is what throws Democrats into a tizzy. As for Iraq's chemical weapons capability we should ask the Iranians who were on the receiving end of chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. Or the Kurds, Iraqi citizens, in Anfal. It can't be disputed that even if at D-Day Saddam didn't have piles of chemical warheads there's still 1) the ability to manufacture chemical weapons, and more importantly 2) the willingness to use them either on other nations or Iraq's own people.
And if this is any indication of the extents they'll go to in hiding multi-ton aircraft I'm curious as to how far they'll go to hide a few hundred pound drums?
Public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law.
George Orwell
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
I wonder if portions of the Patriot Act would make this act an act of terrorisim. I'm not sure if I feel that would be a valid use of the Patriot Act or not however, I do feel that attempting to limit someone's freedom of speech is morally, ethically, and legally wrong. Probably doubly so when it comes to limiting the political process. I am not a member of either major party but I do recognize their role in society and government.
I also know that the two groups in this country that have done the most to limit political speech in this country are the Republican and Democrat parties. Their respective politcal machines hoard the publicity and raise money and as a result they are able to out-shout all the other voices that deserve to be heard. There are other political parties out there that have valid agendas and good ideas (the Greens and the Libritarians come to mind immediately). But the reality is that the two party system that has evolved in this country has served more to divide us than unite us. Most people are members of one party or another based on their feelings about a single issue that they feel strongly about (abortion for instance). They go along with the other planks in their party's platform simply because they agree with the one issue.
In some ways, I'm pretty far to one side and in other ways I'm pretty far to the other. In general my leanings I feel are based on some core values that I got from my parents and my church others from values that I found for myself. Because of these things, I can't be a member of either major party, I run hot or cold, not lukewarm and I'm sorry but I will not comprimise my feelings just to play on one of the big teams.
Unfortunately for me, this means that I do not have much of a voice in Washington D.C.
Most of his money was made from buying the Texas Rangers for a low price and selling them years later for a much higher price, also known as a successful investment. It's true he had significant money from his parents to get that started, but it was less than $1m, while he now has more like $10m. So he inherited money, but most of the money he currently has is not money he inherited.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I wish there was a t-shirt..."I'm against Bush but I don't want to kill him or take down his server or rage about how he's a filthy liar. I just want people not to vote for him because he hasn't done a very good job."
That t-shirt would summarize my worldview pretty accurately. Bravo.
i agree that there is nothing wrong with asking for help. As a matter of fact bush has asked for help in the goings on over in iraq and afghanastan. Certain countries refuse to help and kerry seems to think he can force them to help. One of his campain cries is that we need to get other countries to help us when we already do have other countries helping. As far as i know under bush, the door has always been open for other countries to jin in on the effort. (maybe the role they would play is what is prohibiting them from doing so)
Even after france said that in now way would it get involve in iraq even after kerry was elected as he is trying to indecate would make the difference, Kerry is still tryig to say he would get them involved.
Now the word pussy is just the impresion i get form listening to some peole talk about how we need to get all these other countries (who i belive were the cause of the war) to participate.
How can bush be the lesser of 2 evils? look at kerry's economic platform. Look at his record of attendence on the senate inteligence comity (missed all but 4 or 8 meetings his year) when it really means something. IF kerry is elected this country will go back to carter administration inflation rates. Prices will be out of control. He claims he will keep jobs in america, when his ol ladies ketchup factory just exported a bunch not too long ago (didn't bother him then i guess). He think people with money should pay more taxes but in his home state, there is an option to pay at the next higher tax rate if the tax payer wishes. He has never selected that volentary increase. He is using pictures of his service era claiming that the peole that served with him support him but in reality the people in the picture over whelmingly don't. Even to the point that they started some add campain that is now out of control.
Kerry is not a good choice for america in many ways. I don't really think bush is either, but bush is the lesser of the 2 evils.
You can't be facetious retroactively.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Bah. As the Aliens vs Predator trailer says: Whoever wins, we lose...
Damn. When I saw that, I thought of this.
What?
Significant difference: Bush and Cheney actually put the neo-cons into positions of power and authority within their administration. There's no evidence Kerry will put wackos and anti-capitalists and communists in his administration. Being a moderate, I doubt he will, but then who knows? Bush is no neo-con, but he sure allowed them to call the shots in the end. But let's at least wait for Kerry to make the same mistakes Bush has made before criticizing him the same way.
Should the quieter group sabotage the louder group's PA system? What about throwing things to get attention? How about just plain old kicking the louder group's ass to quiet them down?
Sorry, but these are not expressions of free speech or respecting the opinions of others - just acting like a jackass towards those you disagree with.
I don't care who you put her up against, Anne Coulter can't appear sane. The woman has accused about half the country of a capital crime (treason), and said--without a trace of irony--that the proper reaction to 9/11 was to "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." [source] She also said that the tenets of Islam were, "kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed." [source]
She claims to abhor the meanspirited, unhealthy atmosphere of political debate in this country, but she has done as much to destroy honest debate as anybody I can think of. There is something seriously, psychologically wrong with this woman.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Sorry, Pal. Tempered views like that ain't gonna fly this year. You best be picking one side of the tracks to be on or the election train is gonna trample your ass. ;)
I don't even happen to agree with you, but it is so refreshing to see that at least some people in this country aren't toeing the extreme party lines until their feet bleed.
You know what?
They don't believe it because hackers are part of a demographic that's notoriously anti-organized-religion.
:)
With folks like Ashcroft at the helm of one of the more frightening departments of the government, people associate Republicans with money, power, and religion.
What I think most people fail to realize is that right now, neither party really sticks to their core values. The Democrats want to restrict freedoms under the guise of social and economic reform. The Republicans want to restrict freedom under the guise of security and religous appeal.
Which of these looks more dangerous to the typical hacker's social sensibilities? It doesn't matter if in the end, the core of the US is totally ruined and discarded. All people see right now is the road to get there.
Of course, beware the gross generalizations.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Why bother with writing a script?
v ery
http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/#reloade
Firefox + Slashdot = DDOS.
But you see, when the US is more overextended there's more money to be made on interest, and the US has more money to pay it. Hence the interest (ha ha) in lending more money to the US. Hence the fact that we have more debt is actually a good thing - for everyone but us.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, the people of Spain threw out their
previous leader because he stupidly tried to blame
the bombings on ETA (Basque separatists) and the
public saw right through him (Al-Quaida repeatedly
reiterated their responsibility). He lost the
election because he insisted on trying to blame
the wrong terrorists.
Check your "facts". Don't let the evening news
program you.
I really,REALLY doubt that anyone anti-Republican with an operational brain cell left would pull such a useless, inflamatory stunt such as this.
It makes the 'pubs look like victims, and gives juice to the 'wingers and other "security" crazies in vogue, juice that will inevitably be used to set up a police state presence on the internet.
It reminds me vividly of the few "anarchists" at the WTO protests in Seattle a few years back. A few dozen really violent bastards ran out from nowhere and trashed the city, of the thousands of peaceful people assembled. The news networks ran the pictures incessantly, and the American public were convinced that protests were not worth the free assembly rights we used to have. Now you need to get a permit, and IF you get that, you are herded past a gauntlet of shoulder-to shoulder armored and overarmed black monsters, into a small enclosure surrounded by barbed wire, with cameras trained onto your face, in some remote hellhole. You may be arrested at will. As recent reports indicate, the FBI is now visiting people's homes on the premise that they MIGHT someday protest, leaving the message that They Are Being Watched.
Throwing out the obvious thought: the "anarchists" at the WTO protest were agents provocateurs, and the government security apparatchiks have used that "riot" to institute the present police state in the U.S. and Europe.
And I am thinking that these "protestors" against the Republican web sites are about as authentic as the "anarchist rioters" in Seattle.
Wait for it people: this DOS attack against the 'pubs will be used as publicity fodder to create a new internet police force. If it doesn't work this time, a few "anarchist" attacks in the future should convince the public that such a force is needed.
And the FBI/CIA/HS police will be asking for your papers when you criticize someone in power. Count on it.
Without wishing to flame: are you aware of the meaning of the word "plural"? If so, do you consider the subject line to be irrelevant in providing context for a comment?
...if you're that gung-ho about emulating their most idiotic ideas.
This plan isn't going to work very well when everyone runs the script and they get
"Host look-up error or you don't have an Internet connection."
$main::domain = "http://www.rnc.org/";
http is not part of a domain name.
$main::domain = "www.rnc.org/";
this is correct and runs fine.
too bad there's nobody to contact regarding the problem thanks to 'decentralization'.
Of course he is. Do you know how tough it is to get Kerry to admit his position on anything?
I'm surprised that more people from the left aren't absolutely ashamed of what's going on over there. All the talk of anarchy, black powder on your clothes to confuse the dogs, volunteering for the convention and then not showing up, trying to DoS their website, etc.
God forbid any of these people would go out and campaign for their candidate on the issues. Go door to door asking people to vote for him and telling them why they should. Contribute money to your candidate's campaign. Go to the local campaign headquarters and ask what you can do to help your candidate -- something you can tell your grandchildren about with pride.
The problem with the left is that they're so desperate to defeat Bush that they'll do absolutely anything sort of breaking the law. And I'm sure some won't stop there. Remember, it doesn't have to be a felony or a misdemeanor for something to be wrong or unscrupulous. DoS'ing the GOP's website is going to do absolutely nothing to help your candidate. And neither is causing chaos at the convention.
I, for one, am completely in favor of very strict criminal penalties for anybody who intentionally distrupts the security personnel or infrastructure at the convention or at any high profile event. Send these morons to the city jail for some serious amount of time -- like 90 days. If there's no room for them in the jail, build a tent city outside of town and keep them there.
Protesting is one thing, and you have every right to do that, despite what you and your friends might say about the GOP wanting to silence you. Nobody's going to stop you from protesting, as long as you obey the law. And yes, they might have rules about where you can be. That's not an infringement of free expression. It's a way of attempt to control a potential mob and keep them from intentionally disrupting a location that really does require a lot of security.
Bottom line -- grow up and let the democratic process work. If you really want to help this election, you can get to work educating voters how to vote properly, so we don't have the fiasco we had last time in Florida. Thanks to that lunacy, we unfortunately had to take the whole thing to the courts, which obviously isn't the way a lot of people like to see an election decided.
RP
lessor? where were you when they were teaching spulling? Or has Bush cut education spending that far already.
Before one criticizes another for poor spelling, one should know how to spell himself.
He's had out billions in tax breaks
You probably meant to say, "He has handed out..."
That would be spelled "Deficit".
And what has Kelly done?
Who the hell is Kelly, and what party are they running on?
If you meant Kerry, he lied about his service, see www.swiftvets.com for details.
Kerry also "Lied" about the war; he saw the same intelligence Bush saw and voted to go to war. In fact Kerry was "lying" about Iraq long before Bush came into office. Kerry even criticized the Clinton administration for not finishing the job in the 90's. The criticism Kerry made about Clinton came at least a year before Bush took office in 2001, to find out the exact date, go to www.kerryoniraq.com.
Clinton only lied about who was sucking his dick...
Yes because the chemical weapons lab in Iraq that he bombed was in fact a chemical weapons lab. Oh wait, no, that was an aspirin factory, but somehow Clinton told the truth.
And Clinton's reason for imposing a regime change in Persia, the mass graves, was the "truth", despite the fact that they never did find mass graves. At least Bush found mass graves in Iraq, but apparently that's only a good reason when it comes from the Democrats.
By the way, did you know that the Clinton administration gave Halliburton a no bid contract as well, but some how when Bush does it, it's newsworthy and a crime.
You seem to prove that freedom was taken away long before Bush came into office.
Saddam Hussein would be the lesser of two evils
Now you sound like a Michael Moore nut-job. Perhaps you should go read some fundamental truths about Fahrenheit-911 written by a life long Democrat and Ralph Nader supporter, http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-
perhaps you missed the story about F911 being credited with a rise in Bush's poll numbers.
It's too bad that this group does not believe in free speech.
I think their talents could be much better used educating others, rather than doing what is simply the digital equivilant of shouting someone down.
It's always a shame when people or institutions belive that they have the right to stop other's speech.
THINK! It's patriotic
If you want to help fix the political systmem in America, GET INVOLVED. We are in the boat we are in because we have record low numbers of americans actually voting and electing our leadership. Actually THINKING about the issues and MAKING AN INFORMED VOTE would be a big improvement. Get involed in a political party (not even one of the 'big two' - I bet a lot of slashdotters would like the libertarian party, for instance)
Doing this kind of vandalism is going to do nothing to engender anyone to any cause it might be supporting. It might even polarize people AGAINST the cause it might be supporting. Remember how linux developers were recently criticized for windows virii?
Yeah well I'm sick of all the anti-USA sentiment.
DO they think this will win votes for Kerry? If anything, it will just tick people off more that you are doing some hacker attack to push the democratic agenda instead of honestly discussing the issues. There are so many people that say they are voting for Kerry because they hate Bush, but they have yet to come up with a single positive reason to vote for Kerry...except that they hate Bush. Vote FOR something not against someone else. It will get more done.
Gorkman
More Russian soldiers died in WWII than other allied soldiers fought.
h tml).
Look at the numbers. Russia had over 9 million people killed during WWII, and another 18 million wounded. Compared to the rest of the allied powers who had approx 2.8 million killed and 3 million wounded. (Source: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.
Does this mean WWII was unilateral? I mean, look at the number of deaths alone and you see a HUGE difference in the number of soldiers!
... true defenders of liberty unite!!
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
On behalf of a loser country, I'd like to thank you guys for lending us the money and saving us from the Nazis and the red menace.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
That turned a lot of scared citizens (actually seeing that they could be the victim of terrorist attacks) to vote for the party that would get them out of the terrorists' crosshairs.
Or maybe they were voting against the government that helped put them in the crosshairs in the first place. Six of one, half a dozen of the other...
As aid
You mean like the one million dollars a day given to Israel for state sponsered terrorism against Palestinians. And don't talk to me about defence. I'm Irish. I know what people resort to when their backs are against the wall.
BTW don't the Taleban still owe you guys for all that money you gave them to fight the Russians back in the seventies.
cL0h
"cite plz kthx"
Cite any documented instances of roadblocks blocking voters in Florida's 2000 election. Not a vague charge, but actual incident. To my knowledge, none were found. If you can cite anything solid, I'll become just as outraged.
"knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer"... causing "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period [...] aggregating at least $5,000 in value."
Note: attempted offenses also seem to be listed as prosecutable.
Now, advocating that all of the Kerry supporters should spend the time during the convention MANUALLY looking around every nook and cranny of the RNC website -- IE, Slashdotting them -- would be substantially harder to plausibly prosecute. A federal prosecutor might be able to pull some sort of conspiracy charge out of his... office, but I'd give better odds on a lawyer being able to help you beat the rap. After all, they're supposed to be the Republican NATIONAL Committee; they should expect that everyone in the nation is going to want to hear what they have to say-- all at once, even =) -- and should plan their servers accordingly.
OTOH, IANAL.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Yes, and you've summarized their faults so insightfully. Amazing what gets moderated all the way up as "Insightful" around here...
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
And now for the insults
These so-called hackers a just a bunch of bored children with nothing better to do than throw pooh.
Give 'em more homework, or better yet have their parents give them more chores.
Okay, I feel better now. Feel free to flame.
Actually, most hackers are from the right wing. They believe that government is too large. But lets put that aside.
Do you think some script kiddie is going to take down the REPUBLICAN PARTY? Think again, because you are too caught up in your own delusional fantasy.
So, Taco, you stupid slob, why didn't you make a headline of "all the hackers taking down the Democrats". Because slashdot is no longer news for nerds, it is a top down hierarchy of which propaganda can be disseminated from DNC operatives to the unwashed masses. Woot!
But you see, when the US is more overextended there's more money to be made on interest, and the US has more money to pay it. Hence the interest (ha ha) in lending more money to the US. Hence the fact that we have more debt is actually a good thing - for everyone but us.
Sure, so long as the rest of the world has faith that the US can keep up its repayments. As soon as that faith evaporates (and it will -- I don't know when, but one day -- no empire lasts forever), the dollar will go south, and the US economy will be in really big trouble.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Hello all,
:
I think preventing people from getting information from a party or another is not a good practice in democraty.
But why don t all the people who do not want to see bush any more do not simply put a banner on their web site
NO MORE BUSH !
The web is a media like any other one. It is right to use it into a political way.
First, I've seen and heard this refrain about Iraq becoming more "theocratic" or militantly Islamic. These are very, very small segments in the population. Only one percent of the Iraqi populace favors a Taliban-style Islamic government. You should read some of the Oxford Research surveys done in Iraq. The people there are pretty sensible. The elements like Muqtada Al-Sadr represent the extremist fringes, and are only appearing because these tribal-type groups were crushed under Saddam. So, sorry, but our actions aren't making Iraq a militant Islamic state. The freedoms they have without Saddam will, however, allow some radical fringe elements to be exposed in the interim.
If you DO want to personally criticise someone (and I think "You yourself are an idiot" easily qualifies for that)
Yes, it's a personal attack (I didn't make it, by the way), but it's easily one of the funniest things I've read in weeks.
where is the "I feel for ya, but that's some funny ass shit" moderation?
and my access to information? Fine. I'll use my voting skills to re-elect Bush.
the Rep's used to be more for individual rights
unless you're doing something immoral, like not being a heterosexual, or being a sexual unmarried person, or having an abortion
privacy
unless you're doing something immoral, like not being a heterosexual, or being a sexual unmarried person, or having an abortion
Oh great it's the language police.
Go be annoying somewhere else.
"The irony is that Argentina's debts, when the World Bank shat on them, were far less severe than the USA's."
In terms of absolute dollar figures, or in relative terms compared to national budget/GDP? Part of the reason the US has such large debts (and can get away with them for a time) is that it has so much money to play with to begin with.
Maybe so, but only because we give our cash to practically every other country in the world as 'aid'
As a percentage of GDP given as foreign aid, the USA rates as one of the meanest countries in the developed world. Add to that the strings attached to the meagre aid they do give, such as the withdrawl by the Bush adminstration of funding for NGOs which advocate the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
So squeeze the page down to 100x100 whilst the program is doing it's job. All it is then is a (admittedly ineffictive) news gatherer.... And we've all heard what kinds of problems large numbers of people requesting RSS feeds causes....
So, there. It's got a legitimate face to it. All it is are a bunch of people wanting news!
I will most likely be voting for a third-party candidate
In case you're undecided about who you'd like to vote for, here's a few options:
Yes. End of story.
A large number of people outside the UK seem to see the troubles in NI as being caused by the British government trying to keep control of NI while the population or part of it wants independence. This is not the case. I don't think there are many people in Great Britain (UK minus NI) that care if NI is part on the UK but the problem is much of the population of NI seem to feel strongly one way or the other and many are prepared to commit terrorist acts against people in NI (and in the case of the IRA in people in London) to try to get their way.
I also find it quite hypocritical that the US condemns nations that support terrorism but continues to deny the British government's requests for help in brining the people who fund the IRA (who have committed several serious terrorist acts both in NI and in London) to justice even though much of their funding comes from US citizens without which they would be unable to do the terrible things they have done. (see Another BBC report )
I'd like to vote Badnarik. But I live in a battleground state, and I'd hate to see Kerry win my state by one vote and the White House by one state.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
... that anti-Republicans can also be so anti-democratic.
because they are afraid to hurt their real God, Al Gore, since he invented the internet.
Wealthy people exist on both sides of the political isle. However, it's the republicans who, time and time again, give tax breaks / incentives / corporate welfare to the rich. The democrats, more consistently, try to push the wealth / services to the poor. Just because you're rich doesn't mean you can't support the poor. Just like you don't have to be homeless to run a homeless shelter.
As to the Humble people, I have yet to see a humble person, although, I think a lot of politicans on both sides of the isle should take an example of the current Jimmy Carter.. Serving people, not being served. He's done a better job out of the white house than in it.
As to the President Lincoln argument, take a break and look at what Lincoln wanted to do with the freed slaves: ship them out of the country!!! (Don't take my word for it, look in his memoirs.. I had a class on Abe Lincoln).
Here's one for you: What side of the firehoses were the conservatives on, in the 60's?
It's ridiculous that any entity would do this to another on this level. Look at all the child rapists in the world. Go DDOS them instead. Do something worthwhile. DDOSing politicians when there are better targets is like a cop driving down the street, seeing 20 people shot, and instead of going after the murderers, he pulls over a guy that has a tail light out. Seriously! Go make life difficult for the ones who really need it. While I understand that politicians can be crooked, they're not more crooked than most, they just happen to be better at it and in the spotlight. And, not all politicians are crooked so DDOSing this group will be making things difficult for the good guys who will now be lured to the dark side because of your actions. Way to go, hippies!
This get's modded insightful? Sounds more like a sarcasting whip from an intellectually and socially inept chimpanzee
You guys are so dumb. The whole reason to claim a ddos is to defer attention away from the fact that most people are Republican in this country. They will say the high web hits are not from people, it is from a ddos. I know, hard to believe with the ballot box stuffing from the left and the misinformation from the "news" papers. If they make everyone prove who they are on voting day, Kerry will loose big time. I think he already knows he will loose, so does Edwards. That is why they haven't resigned their Senate seats like Republican's do - like Bob Dole did for his 1996 Presidential run against Clinton. They will be far better loosers than Gore was. He is a big sore Loooooooooser! His help didn't stuff enough boxes.
I guarantee the democrats couldn't take down MS or hell /. for that matter. Why, because being able to communicate is recognized as important to those two orgs
Bullshit.
I guarantee the republicans, democrats, even a group of undersexed teenagers could take down slashdot, or microsoft, given enough time and desire.
Do you not remember google and yahoo disappearing from the web a month ago? Do you really think anyone has more bandwidth than those two/akamai?
Don't be a jackass. This is illegal and immoral.
flamebait? I must confess to a tad.
In both senses, the US is more indebted -- see my post above quoting actual figures for the GDP versus debt.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Then maybe you'd like to buy one...
$9, and all of the proceeds go to Cafe Press.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
The US doesn't have a big problem with pro-neo-Nazi sentiment in our population. Why? It's not because we ban them from speaking or promoting their views, like in Germany. It's because every time they do speak, they get so thoroughly discredited by the opposition that everyone simply ignores them.
Umm, I think you need to look into this a little further.
The fact is any political leader who has expressed so called neo-nazi leanings is either convicted of some dubious crime, usually involving obscure tax laws, or ends up dead.
Combine that with the entire media being controlled by a tiny minority of the population, it makes their voices very quiet indeed.
If you look a little closer, you will find that the law of the land is very much a facade in the US and that the ultimate demise of that country will result from the discontinuity between the stated ideals of the government, and the actual policies and practices of those who possess the power.
Really, this incongruence is very much an issue in the US, it is infecting the whole of the population, just as this article points out. The people who are fighting for freedom instead try to silence their opponents!
If anything, you should be wondering how it is that virtually every country in Europe has relatively large, organized political parties which many organizations like the ADL label as neo-nazi despite the fact such parties either illegal outright (Germany), or indirectly (ie Front National in France).
How is the US so different from Europe? Given the level of disdain the elites have for the common American of European descent, shouldn't his intelligence predispose him to such barbaric political leanings?
No, I think you are discounting the effectiveness of the propaganda efforts of those who control the media and educational institutions of the US, as well as the creative legal system of that country that can conceal from people like you ridiculous injustices. Of course, it shouldn't be a surprise you discount such propaganda efforts since you have been subject to it your entire life, virtually every waking moment of your existence.
If everyone who felt like you rose up and voted for Badnarik, we'd all win.
Although I'm voting for Bush, actually, and want him to win out of the four. I'll reevaluate again in four years. Unless the parties fundamentally realign, I can't see myself seriously considering anyone other than Republican or Libertarian.
I'd like to understand your rationale a little better. Since Reagan left office, Republicans have positioned themselves at the very opposite end of the political spectrum from Libertarianism. What, in the Democratic platform, is more horrifying to a libertarian-leaning voter than a virulent, out-of-control theocracy whose agenda is basically governmental expansion, deficit spending, and packing the Supreme Court with evangelical freakshows?
I don't like paying excessive taxes any more than the next guy, but until Bush II, I don't think I realized how many other ways existed for the Federal government to hose the citizenry.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Low voter turnout shows the world that we don't really care about how our country is run... GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASSES & VOTE... FOR SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE IN!!!
BRILLIANT! Damn that was funny.... thank you.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
There are a thousand comments here so I'm sure mine will get lost but let me point out that the above comment is ASININE. The US strategy in Iraq has made the forces of panislamic radicalism infinitely stronger and ensured they will survive and prosper for decades to come. A CIA officer who worked on bin Laden for years (the book is Imperial Hubris) calls the war in Iraq a "Christmas present" to al Qaeda that they wished for but never really expected to get. It's become pretty clear that some of the "intelligence" linking al Qaeda to Iraq (and despite what you say, the US govt did and continues to maintain that there were significant ties between the two) came from an al Qaeda agent who later admitted to lying under interrogation, most likely in order to draw the US into war with Iraq. Another al Qaeda agent gave an interview in which he said that the reelection of George Bush is something al Qaeda wants because his Iraq policy and his stupidity has proved useful to al Qaeda. The war in Iraq has turned many people into suicide bombers who were never even especially Islamist. It has been a lightning rod for Islamists around the globe, proof that the US is at war with Islam itself (Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam, and we launched an unprovoked attack on it; what more proof do they need?). There were no Iraqi suicide bombers prior to the war! It has also proliferated the number of targets -- US servicemen and women -- for al Qaeda and similar groups to easily attack. And it has turned people to extreme forms of shariah -- like in Fallujah -- in a country where it is anathema! Banning alcohol, for example, in a nation where the greatest poets and statesmen have always glorified drinking. Making women wear the veil in a country where they used to go to university. The US Army War College pointed this out in a study at the end of 2003 and the DoD's response was to say they wouldn't read the study if it contradicted their policy. It is time for policies to change. Anyone serious about fighting the threat of Islamic militancy needs to recognize this (and gratefully, many are, though perhaps not on slashdot).
It seems pretty obvious to me that the 'hactivists' are exactly what they profess the desire to overthrow. They are deciding that its bes tfor people not to see these websites, and therefore not decide for themselves. Some freedom fighters... If they really belived in the opposing force here, in this case the Democrats, they would be confident that their (the Dems) message, weighed against the Repub's message, would be enough for people to make a valid and respectable choice. But to say, "ets silence one of their outlets of expression, so only one side can be heard' is exactly the kind of oppression that these morons think they are fighting. What a bunch of fools.
I guess you're not familiar with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan, then..
Iraq was hardly the kind of threat Germany, Italy, and Japan were during WWII. Bush's war was a preemptive one and from the evidence that has been gathered so far, preemption seems not to have been necessary. In other words, Iraq wasn't even about to transgress their national boundaries any time soon. It seems the first Gulf War centered around Iraq's occupation of Kuwait taught Hussein a lesson he was not likely to forget.
When you write things such as "set up a free state in the middle of the region to act as a beacon to bring liberty and peace to the rest of the region" I believe you are unrealistically optimistic about the actual state that will Iraw will have ten years' time. The stability the US is so interested in bringing to the Middle East has little to do with human rights concerns and everything to do with ensuring that American oil cartels and the fossil-fuel depedent US economy continue as they have been since the 1960s.
I do believe that the protection and extension of human rights are the most important function any government. However, I don't believe that forcibly removing Saddam Hussein from power in the way the US did so was the best way to ensure human rights in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. In my more cynical moments, I suspect that the 2003-? Persian Gulf War will in fact decrease govermental protections of human rights in the Middle East.
blog
Yeah, pump action shotguns and .30 calibre rifles are going to be very useful in the coming revolution.
Make no mistake the banning of automatic weapons was for this specific reason.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Still waiting to see where the official spokesman of the right admitted they spin more than the left.
Um...not hard at all? The reason I liked Kerry in the primaries was that every one of his views, positions and plans was clearly laid out on his website. Since he's become the official candidate, it's kind of been blurred a bit, but the message is still there.
Or are you listening to the Republican line that "changing your mind" is a sign of weakness?
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Must really suck to be that poor, eh?
Yeah, he may be the poorest of the bunch, but he still has more money than I will ever see in my life...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
He's presided over a regime that's successively stripped away your rights and freedoms.
That should be relatively easy for you...
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Preventing people from getting access to information is inherently anti-democratic. That seems kinda odd for people who appear to be supporting the Democratic party. But not odd when you consider they are most likely really stupid.
Never- ever- piss off a hacker. The people behind this are probably all techies whith plenty of time on their hands due to Bush's Job-loss recovery.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I'm an Anarcho-Socialist... so what does that make my code again?
Wherever you go, there you are!
Of course, the thing to realize is that for the most part Kerry has been keeping out of this overt Bush bashing.
Even assuming this were true, when you vote for Bush, you vote for the Republican party, and when you vote for Kerry, you are voting for the Democrat party.
Now, if the Democrats (as a party) don't want to define themselves in terms of the rabid OMFGBUSHISEVIL crowd, they shouldn't have invited Moore to sit in the presidential box at the convention. The conventions are there to show the country where the parties stand, and where they want to go from here. That one simple gesture went a long way toward defining the direction that the Democrats (the party, not necessarily the rank-and-file) want to take this country.
Imagine the shit-storm if the Republicans have Michael Savage sit in their presidential box at the RNC.
Yes, that happened in the 80s, back when the US government supported Saddam.
Those weapons would long since have been degraded and become unusable. In the 90s, the US kept watch on Iraq to prevent it from re-arming, including Clinton having it bombed (possibly to draw attention from his own personal issues...) to destroy their capability to produce WMDs.
And the Bush administration, during its first year, stated repeatedly that Iraq was contained, disarmed and not dangerous.
What changed, other than Bush's political goals becoming more imminent?
Why should he care to sign up for an account? To impress you when he criticizes you?
They sound like a bunch of useful idiots to me. Hail the totalitarian dupes!
Most politicians say whatever the group they are speaking in front of want to hear. You have to look at what they actually do. That takes more effort than most people are willing to put in.
Tax cuts? good for you, great for the idle rich, bad for your kids.
Invade Iraq|n? good for Haliburton, bad for your kids.
On Topic, programmers are getting beat to death like the auto workers and steel workers in the 80's. By dimantling the middle class one industry sector at a time, the rest of the middle class ignores it. Unfo. for the elitists there's a snapback effect once a critical mass is reached. Perhaps they think by extending the process over 50 years the effect will not occur? I theorized while studying Western Cic. in HS that about 18% of the people have to get really pissed and then they start protests and then the snapback snowballs. When you see people actively attacking the elitist governemnt, then you are seeing that people are pissed. :-)
,Budget Surplus or Deficit (-) as % GDP,Cyclical Surplus or Deficit (-) as % GDP,Other Adjustments as % GDP,Surplus or Deficit (-) as % GDP,Revenues as % GDP,Outlays as % GDP,Debt (100B),Debt as % of GDP,Debt as % of Tax Income (x100),GDP (100T),Debt,Tax Income (100B),Tax Income (B),Tax Income as % of GDP (x100)
1962,-1.2,-0.4,0.1,-0.7,17.3,18,,,,,,0.5,46.5,
1963,-0.8,-0.3,-0.1,-0.6,17.5,18.1,,,,,,0.5,49.1,
1964,-0.9,0.3,0.2,-1,17,18,,,,,,0.5,46,
1965,-0.2,0.8,0.2,-0.8,16.2,17,,,,,,0.5,51.1,
1966,-0.5,1.9,0.4,-2.1,15.9,18,,,,,,0.6,58.6,
1967,-1.1,1.7,*,-2.8,16.9,19.7,,,,,,0.6,64.4,
1968,-3,1.4,0.6,-3.7,16.5,20.3,4,,4.7%,, $358.00 ,0.8,76.4,
1969,0.4,1.6,*,-1.2,17.7,18.9,4,,4.0%,, $368.00 ,0.9,91.7,
1970,-0.3,0.6,0.2,-0.6,17.8,18.4,4,,4.4%,, $389.00 ,0.9,88.9,
1971,-2.1,-0.3,0.9,-0.9,17.1,18.1,4,,4.9%,, $424.00 ,0.9,85.8,
1972,-2,*,0.3,-1.7,16.9,18.6,4,,4.2%,, $429.00 ,1.0,102.8,
1973,-1.2,1.2,0.6,-1.7,16.7,18.4,5,,4.3%,, $469.00 ,1.1,109.6,
1974,-0.4,0.7,1.3,0.1,17.7,17.6,5,0.3%,3.9%,1.5, $492.00 ,1.3,126.5,8.4%
1975,-3.3,-1.4,2,0.1,18.5,18.4,6,0.4%,4.8%,1.6, $576.00 ,1.2,120.7,7.5%
1976,-4.1,-1.4,0.8,-2,17.3,19.3,7,0.4%,4.6%,1.8, $653.00 ,1.4,141.2,7.8%
1977,-2.7,-0.6,1,-1.1,17.8,18.9,7,0.4%,4.4%,2, $718.00 ,1.6,162.2,8.1%
1978,-2.7,0.1,1.3,-1.5,17.5,19.1,8,0.3%,4.2%,2.3, $789.00 ,1.9,188.9,8.2%
1979,-1.6,0.5,1.4,-0.7,17.9,18.6,8,0.3%,3.8%,2.6, $845.00 ,2.2,224.6,8.6%
1980,-2.7,-0.7,1.6,-0.4,18.8,19.2,9,0.3%,3.7%,2.8, $930.00 ,2.5,250,8.9%
1981,-2.5,-0.9,1.2,-0.4,19.5,19.9,10,0.3%,3.5%,3.1 ," $1,028.00 ",2.9,290.6,9.4%
1982,-3.7,-2,0.7,-1.1,19.2,20.3,12,0.4%,4.1%,3.3," $1,197.00 "
National Debt (well, basically embezzlement by the politicians and their cronies) is just one reason. Take a look at the last page of this link and see pure embezzlement from our government: embezzlement?. Who's stupid enough to vote for an incumbant? Bush and Kerry are both incumbants. They should both tear their clothes, gnash their teeth, and ask the American people to pray for a better government. They don't.
I was looking at the debt before and got some numbers from various US gov. web sites. Amazingly the dis-information campaign has not shut these down. Funny thing is that it has increased ever since like 1962 but Democrats claim Clinton had a Balanced Budget. This FALSE accounting is nonsense. Ask a kid in school if spending more than you take in is a Balanced Budget. That said, the administration prior to this one did do alot better. The USA cannot afford another Republican government if you believe that relates to the debt trendline. We will be bankrupted and forced into servitude to a world government/bank. "Don't cry for me Argentina...."
First look at the situation for UK and Canada. UK
Canada
These can be graphed in Excel... I did not find a good site with the chart on the web.
Expect Freedom.
I dislike Bush because he has taken what should have been a great and noble act of liberalism (the liberation of Iraq) and bungled it horribly. Because he has no patience, he alienated our best allies rather than encouraging them. Instead of engaging in detente with our less eager allies, these allies were rudely dismissed as "old", "wrong", and "against us". Because he has no taste for discussion or dissent, he opted to insult and exclude those whose help we would end up needing most.
Because he was fixated on invading Iraq, he attacked just when inspections were gathering speed (and, not coincidentally, beginning to yield firmer evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq.) Instead of honestly assessing what tenuous intelligence we had and presenting it as it was, he cherry-picked the choicest morsels and doomsday scenarios, ignored the qualifications, and pressed forward with the scariest evidence he could find. He knew exactly what he wanted to do; thus, he treated our intelligence not as a means of informing his decision, but as a device to reinforce his plan.
He utterly failed to prepare for the post-invasion period. Our march to Baghdad was glorious, brilliantly executed, and as close to flawless as one could ever hope a military action might be. Once this was over, however, it became immediately apparent that he had given virtually no thought to what would be done once Hussein was deposed. We stood idly by as Iraq was literally torn to shreds by unruly mobs and looters. We dragged our feet for months on implementing democratic reforms. We failed miserably at protecting Iraqi infrastructure (besides, shockingly, the oil fields, pipelines, and oil ministry facilities.) Even today electricity and water are unreliable. Our front man, Chalabi, turned out to be an opportunistic charlatan; it was discovered all too late that he'd been blowing smoke up our asses so that he could return to Iraq and claim power. Bush had little more than a cosmetic understanding of the tribal nature of the Sunni, the fervor and oppression of the Shia, the fierce independence of the Kurds, and the volatile nature of their union as an Iraqi state. Instead of shoring up existing Iraqi institutions, Bush decided to essentially scrap the extended government structure and start from scratch on a model of private enterprise. Tens of thousands of foreign civilian contractors were poured into an active war zone to reshape Iraq in accordance with PNAC's vision of what Iraq should be. Only now are Iraqi voices genuinely beginning to re-take control of their country's destiny.
I understand the appeal of Bush's strong words, clear vision, and unshakable resolve. We are indeed a great nation, the greatest on the face of the planet, and we should spread democracy far and wide. We need to do it properly, though, and while I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of how to pull this off, I'm convinced that what Bush has been doing is doing growing, lasting harm to our nation. His leadership has been imperious, impertinent, and arrogant. Those who question or dissent are ridiculed, insulted, smeared, and ignored. He thinks and acts in broad, powerful, absolute strokes--regardless of what any given situation calls for. He is folksy, plain-talking and simple-minded, which makes for great neighbors and drinking buddies but lousy world leaders. He is obsessively shielded from protest; those reporters who ask tough questions are conspicuously avoided in the future; he is heavily shielded by his advisors, and the buck has yet to stop at him.
Bush is not the 'lessor' evil; he isn't evil, and neither is Kerry. Bush is, however, a man of strong conviction--too strong. His convictions, while often good and right, have proven disastrously wrong on many occasions. In spite of this, he has demonstrated no introspection, and he has never wavered in his certitude that what he does is right beyond question. He favors faith over thoug
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
These idiots should be more like responsible, Republican activists and get involved. By, say for example, manipulating the system and disingenuously signing petitions to enable a third-party nobody to steal votes from their candidate's opponent. Now that's responsible politics.
I certainly have no love of GWB due to his lack of military training and leadership history.
None the less, the new government of Spain is repulsive, and it will do nothing but further destroy the precious Spanish cultural heritage that Franco did so much to preserve. Spain is rapidly descending into the abyss of Western European nihilism and I pray they do not become another France or Germany.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
"Now the word pussy is just the impresion i get form listening to some peole talk about how we need to get all these other countries (who i belive were the cause of the war) to participate."
Good job dumbfuck.
Because Britain and France and Spain are really supporters of terrorism.
On the other hand, the practice of smearing one's opponents by associating them with the most radical practices of anyone their half of the political spectrum is still alive and well among pundits of all stripes...
I'm sure those censoring liberal hippies would be glad to frankly exchange views on the restriction of free speech with you from their designated protest area at the RNC. I'm sure they don't mind the recent polite vists they've received from the FBI, either. (See? I can present isolated anecdotes as conclusively damning evidence too.)
~Idarubicin
how the hell is any of this flaim bait? I mean we are discusing the remifications of doing somethign like this. The only flaim about this conversation is someone doesn't wan't anything other then sign up now to be said. Oh well..
Damn the torpedos prepare to ram
Per your second part, perhaps you haven't heard dissenting Republican voices other than Sen. McCain's, but millions of others likely have in pieces like this one printed in the Wall St. Journal and, likely, elsewhere.
The story here is that people are allowed to have their opinions - it sucks when they're astrotuf-like "opinions," but the parent article is about one group of folks trying to keep other groups from getting their word out: that's not dissent, that's a gagging - Where's the ACLU (and ACLU-like attitude) here?
Have fun in some god forsaken place dying for a person who probably doesn't even know your name. Good luck on bringing the site down. This is alot more peaceful than some protests that have happened.
They don't change their story or position based on their audience.
Which is a BIG problem in a representative democracy.
There have been times and places in history when you could advise people to panic and lash out, and it was just good common sense, but more often it's simple demagoguery.
In an "unprecedented" desperate emergency, desperate measures are justified, yes? After all, when you're fighting a last-ditch battle to save the Constitution, struggling to preserve the very soul of our nation, literally defending yourself and the body politic against the greatest threat to liberty it has ever faced... isn't it a bit silly to quibble over a few petty legalities around the edges? Can we really AFFORD to make nice ethical distinctions, when the slightest weakness or hesitation could give the Enemy the advantage they need to crush us forever? Do YOU want to be the one who allowed the last flicker of freedom to be extinguished, merely because you lacked the moral courage to use harsh measures against the megacorps and their lackeys? Of course not!
Naturally, if this weren't quite such a catastrophic situation, if the future of the nation and indeed the world weren't balanced on quite such a fine knife edge between justice on the one hand and an endless hellish abyss of slavery and war on the other... well, in less desperate times, we would certainly be scrupulous about our actions. You must understand, we do these terrible things only out of necessity! The Evil Ones have forced our hand -- and besides, George Bush is doing it too, so that makes it okay.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. So said a great and beloved icon of social, racial, and economic justice, back in that desperate and decisive year 1964... Er, wait, no, that was Barry Goldwater. Same difference, really.
Once you get people properly scared, you can point them at a scapegoat ("capital", "megacorps", "neocons", "com-symp fellow travellers", immigrants with dark complexions -- take your pick). It helps a lot if they're a bit scared to begin with. The Inflation helped Hitler, for example. It's easiest to motivate young people this way. They're more insecure, more emotional, and they have less to lose. They're full of energy and they haven't seen enough of the world to begin to suspect that there never is a simple, violent, and decisive solution to most problems (lots of older people don't "get it" either, of course, and some young people do -- this is a sort of actuarial view, here). Look at the Cultural Revolution: Mao didn't bother trying to motivate middle-aged shopkeepers to roam around the countryside beating people up. He went for young people.
Is the administration really trying to panic the population into acting foolishly? And succeeding? Mebbe so, though it's not seelf-evident. My impression is that most people aren't taking the terrorist threat level stuff very seriously, but maybe that's just the people I happen to know in Boston. Maybe they're quivering in their boots out in Waukegan. On the other hand, let's also remember that the threat is not wholly imaginary. For every voice complaining about Tom Ridge's warnings, there's one complaining about the lack of warnings pre-9/11, and in some delightful cases it's the same voice. Back in the 1990s, some folks ridiculed the Clinton administration's mild concern about al Qaeda as an attempt to stir up fear for demagogic purposes.
Finally, let's ask ourselves: Is left-wing demagoguery a significant threat to our precious liberty? Must we STAMP THEM OUT like they want to stamp out the GOP? Fuck, no! I've just compared their mentality to those of Mao and Hitler; surely this indicates that they must be absolutely identical to Mao and Hitler, yes? Well, actually, once again, fuck, no! They don't have the kind of resources Mao and Hitler had. My personal belief is that if, by some magic miracle, the radical undergraduate Left gained power in this country, they'd do pre
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
Do we even know that this CrimethInc asshole is a leftist? For all we know, this could be a SCO style coup.
"Look how victimised we are! Help, help, we are being oppressed by evil Linux hackers!
sed "s/Linux/Democrat/"
It's not like it would be the first time the Republican party did something like that either. Remember when the Republicans "won" the election and started to move into the Whitehouse, there were reports that the Democrats had vandalized equipment and properties before leaving. People were claiming that keyboards were jammed, they had cut wires and glued pornography on the wall and "worse things, too disgusting to mention" (Leaving it up to the readers imagination and blogging sites to imagine and rumour about things like feces smeared on door handles etc). Guess what, this was all a big fat lie spread to discredit the Democrats. The Republicans showed their class immediately.
Of course, people on sites like FreeRepublic are still quoting this as fact.
Yeah, if your definition of fairness means giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at the expense of the rest of them.
It's that kind of deceptive statement the prevents me from ever being a democrat. The words you use are designed to manipulate and are pure propaganda. Do you even know you're doing it?
I'll explain what I mean. When you reduce someones taxes are you actually giving something to them? Nope. You're taking less.
And how is taking less from them at the expense of the rest? Money isn't being taking by the government from the poor to be given to the rich. It's mostly the other way around. Yet your statement is designed to manipulate people into believing that's what's happening. It's propaganda. You're propagating a deception.
And letting companies get away with poisoning the environment without penalty either at the time or later down the line.
That's an example of environmental zealotry that doesn't recognize the tradeoffs involved. The fact is, we trade some "evironmental degradation" for other kinds of benefits. But it takes a balanced approach to recognize that. Do you recognize the need for a balanced approach?
I don't think so. You've been programmed to hate those bad ol' companies. Why they're enemies of mother earth! They're all evil!
Of course, you don't mind having computers, cell phones, nice house, plenty of food, and all the other things that come from evil business.
And cutting soldiers pay and veterans benefits right when you're sending them out to war.
Could be. I'd rather have more details before judging.
And reducing public schools to the level where they practically have to throw poor students out of class or else risk losing desperately needed funds because they aren't meeting set targets.
Maybe educators should try changing their busine^H^H^H^H^H education model instead of complaining.
It cracks me up that the same people who say Fox is biased seem to think that Michael Moore and moveon.org are pure and only speak the absolute truth. Is it not possible that they seem biased because all the other news sources are biased in a liberal, sorry, Progressive slant. You also need to take into account whether the show is a news program or a news commentary program. FYI, they are different things. A commentator should have opinions, a news presenter should not.
But what about "Swift Boaters against Kerry"? What about Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Democrats need some "crazies" to balance the screaming from the other side.
You can't always play nice. If someone accuses you of being a godless, child molesting communist, you should probably reply. Ignoring them does not seem to work - at least in politics.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I'd love to call myself a liberal; in the classic sense I am one.
Liberal in the classic sense of the word means having knowledge about an issue from a diversity of different viewpoints. In your weblog, you cite a creationist website (all the while apologizing for it) as the basis for a scientifically reasoned argument about the small likelihood of extraterrestrial life. And if you are a liberal in the classic sense, how can you chafe at foreign journalists' criticism of US-sponosored military destruction?
Part of the problem seems to be that you don't know what a liberal really is. For example, your future participation in the democratic process (itself a standard for classical liberal humanism) is to treat it as a system that should be gamed. You claim you will be "[holding] your nose" as you vote for Bush this year, but why? Why not be a "liberal in the classic sense of the word" and vote your conscience, for the person who best represents your interests, consequences be damned? Holding your nose while voting does not seem to be an exercise of your individual political power as much as it seems to be the transferrence of that power to anyone-who-is-not-not-Bush (i.e. Bush). I'm sad you feel you have no better choice than to vote for something that you think "stinks."
blog
Ya know, Thomas Jefferson held church services in the Capitol building. By today's standards he would be a "theocrat" if you think Bush is. But you speak of the Founding Fathers like they knew what was going on. Which is it?
"YeeHaw" is not a foreign policy
Holy shit, that is the funniest thing I have EVER heard said against Bush!
Yeah!
considering a vast section of republicans in Congress, Senate and the White House as well as governmental agencies use the Weapon of the Armed Forces against (foreign) civilians and states to increase their chances to stay in positions of power themselves I fail to see the badness of a wee bit of site defacing and whatnot...
Speaking as a Reublican, I'd think you'd be shocked at just how many Republicans agree with you.
These people are cultural bigots who don't grasp anything outside their own limited experience. They believe they have some sort of monopoly on truth and are willing to do anything to gain power.
It's this kind of statement, though, that really rubs me the wrong way. The statement itself seems to be evidence of your own cultural bigotry.
If you're referring to the time period before he lost to the American Devil that he claimed he would defeat (as he was angling to be the head of the Islamic world), yes Jihad was a strategy of his. After he lost, he could no longer make that claim, so the most catering to extremist Muslims he did was to build elaborate Mosques. He was a well-known opponent of Wahabbism (which is followed by most of Al Qaeda) to such an extent that it was punishable by death. Terrorism was as much a threat to him as it was America. All we've done is polarize the Islamic arena, many of whom very well may have been planning to remove Saddam anyway.
Wouldn't a google bomb be more fun & more effective, like the ones they've done to democratic candidates.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." -Al Gore
I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
Do these guys have no shame. This is supposed to be a democracy, and they're talking about attacking a public communications channel of one of the main parties during the runup to the election. Deliberately targetting their ability to campaign during that election.
All chemical and biological weapons have limited useful life spans. The chemicals are volatile and degrade, and the bioweapons are based on living organisms, which die.
The maximum useful lifespan of these is at MOST five years, which means any WMD's Iraq had in the gulf war in 1991 were USELESS by 1996.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15854
There was a WMD shell used in an attack against US troops a few months ago - they didn't die, the worst symptoms they got were a headache and a sore throat.
Regardess of the means, if you intend to cause damage ( even in the abstract sence of preventing legitmate useage of a web site ) its illegal.
Much as driving a car is legal, until you decide to run over someone intentionally.
Personally any one that oes this SHOULD be tossed in jail.
The have a right to be heard, but they want to deprive someone else of that right?
But i do agree about people hiding behind an anonymous nick.. Though really we are ALL hiding if you get techincal...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ever heard of Tim McVeigh? How about William Krar? Google him. Tom Metzger? How about Jerry Falwell, who blamed liberals for 9/11? The Anthrax terrorist was likely a right-wing extremist. The Atlanta Olympic bomber was likely a right-wing extremist. How about Kevin Ray Patterson and Charles Dennis Kiles? I could also throw in Neo Nazis and the KKK. Left-wing extremists are by and large, non-violent whackos. Right-wing extremists tend to be violent. I can't see basing my vote on the extremists in either party. Extremists are by definition on the extreme. If anything, I'd say Republicans have a bigger extremist tent than Democrats. Why not make a decision on, oh I don't know, policy? I will agree that DOSing these sites is NOT a good idea, though I sincerely doubt that it's going to turn anyone off to John Kerry. You seem to be trying to rationalize a decision you've already made.
Neil Boortz is a Libertarian and doesn't support Bush.
Just thought you would want to know.
And lemme tell you, Nixon was a smart guy.
Here he was talking hard policy with his secretary of state. He was talking the issues. He knew them inside and out. The things he was saying made sense. They were smart. He was insightful.
So I thought: This is so refreshing! Now here's a guy who can be President! I could never, not in a million years, imagine this same conversation happening between George Bush and Colin Powell. Hell, I couldn't imagine it happening between George Bush and anybody.
I'm a huge Democrat, but I'd prefer a guy like Nixon to be in charge now than what we are having. If this election were Bush vs. Nixon, I would vote Nixon in a heartbeat. I don't agree with his politics, and you know, Nixon was definitely no saint, but he clearly understood complexity and knew his stuff. That's the kind of guy we need right now.
Let's get someone in this White House that like that. I know a lot of people hate John Kerry, but you know, the man is alright. More importantly, he has an open mind. Right now, the entire Bush administration (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.) insists on having their eyes and ears shut. That'd be alright if they knew what they are doing, but their ideas on national security are DEAD WRONG. But don't take my word for it. Do a little research on what all the national security experts have to say about it.
Kerry will appoint people who DON'T have their eyes and ears shut and focused on the One Truth Neo-conservative Path. I think that's a very important point which sometimes gets neglected.
(1) Bush may have speech impediments, but so did Enoch and Moses. If you take the time to listen to Bush's message and see what he things and he feels, you'd be surprised at how absolutely brilliant he is.
Are you out of your mind? "Brilliant"? BRILLIANT? Have you ever actually listened to Bush? Speech "impediment" (if by "impediment" you don't mean it in the traditional sense-- ie, slurring, stuttering, lisping, etc.) aside, the man speaks only in soundbytes-- he says the same pre-cooked phrases over and over. He does not respond directly to challenging questions. He does not provide thoughtful answers. He is smug. There is no clarity of thought and he does not demonstrate any depth or familiarity with issues. He repeats the same surface slogans again and again and again. GENIUS? Are you mad?
According to biblical tradition,
One traditional story tells that when he was a child, sitting on Pharaoh's knee, Moses took the crown off of Pharaoh's head and put it on. The court magicians took this as a bad sign and demanded that he be tested: they put a brazier full of gold and a brazier full of hot coals before him to see which he would take. If Moses took the gold, he would have to be killed. An angel guided Moses's hand to the coal, and he put it into his mouth, leaving him with a life-long speech impediment (Ex. 4:10).
Unlike Moses, Bush wore his gold crown on his head and a silver spoon in his mouth from the day he was born and hasn't yet taken it off. Look at the demeaning way he talks to people. I've literally seen him wipe his hands on other people's clothing. He's a prick.
Instead, you focus on his speech impediment and you can't get into his message.
He's a terrible speaker, we agree. But he also represent shallow self-serving, hypocritical, elitist, and compassionateless ideas.
To criticize Bush's critics for poking fun at his "speech impediment" is a serious underestimation of how and why he's going to lose this election, God willing.
(2) Sure, let Ashcroft speak. Maybe he can teach you a thing or two about real justice, how to end the racial divide and the cultural divide in America, how we can really change the tide of the sickening plague of divorce and marital problems and hopefully encourage people to get and stay married for the right reasons. I believe Ashcroft is one of the great visionaries on the cultural / religious debates. He is redefining what it means to be a religious, yet tolerant and just, public official.
Sometimes it's not worth responding to the insane, but because there's a chance impressionable children are reading, I guess I'll indulge you.
Explain to me-- where's the real justice in arresting and holding American citizens without trial or even representation for years? Where's the end of the cultural divide when innocent, loyal, and patriotic immigrants to this country are arrested and deported without any kind of due process? How has the "plague of divorce" been stemmed when Republican mouthpeice FOX promotes show after show that view exploiting marriage as entertainment, when at the same time Bush wants to amend our sacred Constitution so that two people who have love each other for years can't get married?
Where is the Republican outcry about the sanctity of marriage when Bush supporters get married on a whim in Las Vegas for the hell of it and then get annulled hours later?
You have no idea what the Republican party stands for, because you get all your information second-hand. We stand for racial equality.
Yeah right. While fighting affirmitive action. While fighting a living minimum wage so that people can raise their families. Who do you think you're fooling? If Republicans were concerned about racial
Jefferson wasn't trying to fund any of this. Bush is giving money to the Moonies for abstinence based sex ed. Jefferson treated the church services in House like renting out a community center. It was voluntary and it was more of a cultural exchange as the service invited different religions to lead it. Bush's promotion of religion is very different. Jefferson practiced tolerence, Bush practices advocacy.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
I think you're a hypocrite if you criticize the patriot act but applaud these types of efforts to limit free speech.
The poster was complaining that legions of GOP media puppets endlessly distort their opponents by constantly attacking ridiculous straw men which they pretend are representative, mainstream views. He wasn't saying that they actually are these distortions.
Vinton Cerf (generally acknowledged as the father of the Internet): I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet." Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has become the Internet. More here: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins /
Sorry about that. Here's a WORKING link.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"Being a moderate, I doubt he will" Who you or Kerry? Kerry is in no way a moderate.
If I'm not mistaken /. ran a previous story about him getting tossed from DefCon. http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/0 8/03/1617215&tid=156&tid=172&tid=95&tid=21 8
1 426209
The report from newsforge is under Hacktivism.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/08/02/
I swear this sounds like a guy whose site I used to work on. I saw someone had posted a code snippet from their supposed DoS tool. The code looks like their caliber, shoddy. They are nothing more than an army of spotty faced kids who grew up in suburban areas, and are pissed because mommy and daddy didn't buy them a pony for their 5th birthday.
If I do find it is the same guy, I will post the URL to the Slashdot community, and you guys can sound off on their forums about what you think of their politics.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I don't think you realize that very few people in the US know much about history or other countries. A large part of the history problem is the decline of our public school system for the last 80 years, but the lack of foreign knowledge is a different beast. My guess is that because the US is isolated from Europe and Asia, the general population here doesn't learn about them. What they don't know about they don't care about, so in this case, Europe, Asia and Africa get little attention or care. The lack of schooling contributes I'm sure, but the real reason for a dearth of support would be "out of sight, out of mind".
Hey, the Repubs have FOXNews, 24-7, blasting their partisan crap.
What these hackers are doing will NOT "stifle" the corporate message of the Repub party. We get that not only as a constant drumbeat from the FOX channel, but also throughout the watered down bullshit on CNN and even the networks, too.
These hacker actions are a form of political protest.
And, btw: Quite your WHINING.
Bush sucks, and we all know it.
But, be warned... don't allow yourself to be drawn into some spurious idea of a relationship between these people and any other group of people. They're just LOSERS, plain and simple.
+1, Poster considers other views, revises own, sets example for rest of /. zoo
The Swiftvets are voicing their opinion. The LeftistLoons are trying to shut up and terrorize those with whom they disagree. Your inability to grasp this distinction reinforces my opinion of Democrats as mindless parrots who believe it is okay for them to break laws (such as voter fraud for Kennedy and Gore) because they are the good guys.
I support peoples' right to peaceful assembly, but most of the time I see lots of youthful exhuberence and ill-educated idiots who are out to protest because "it's cool", not because they truly believe in a cause or feel that this is their only way to make people aware of the cause.
Yours is one of the most thoughtful and balanced politcal posts I've seen on Slashdot in quite some time. Everything you wrote makes quite a bit of sense, especially your ideas about the ineffectiveness of disruptive protests.
But what you wrote about young uneducated protesters doing what they do to be "cool," reminded me that United States has seen such things before. In the 1950s, the Right made an unprecedented appearance in the form of McCarthyism. That unfortunate political milestone in the United States produced a generation of children who had seen enough of mom-and-pop soda shops and buttoned-down "family values," giving birth to 1960s Counterculture. This reaction rebelled against heteronormative, bourgeois American culture, a culture that could think of nothing better than Mom, Dad, two kids, 1.5 cars and Fido. Sex, drugs, and Rock & Roll was the partial mantra of this counterculture, and the uneducated youth were its champions. Protests of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, the drug-obsessed hedonism of the hippies, the promiscuity of the Free Love movement, and the militant aspects of the Civil Rights movement were driven by masses of young people who were tuning in and dropping out. Who, in other words, were too cool for the Establishment
The difference between "protesting because it's cool" and "igniting a revolution" is a difference of degree, not kind. While it is true these early 2000s hactivists and potentially violent RNC protestors don't seem to have much going on, who knows what group of young people will be the "hippies" of their generation?
blog
I think that's a hate speech!
All kidding aside... You have to admit that the GOP has many more of its extremists holding offices. How many "moderate" Republicans are there in the House and Senate? Not a whole lot.
In the case of the GOP, the extremists are actually running the show. Among the Democrats, the extremists are just a very vocal contingency that doesn't have a lot of power.
So in order to not look scared, you suggest that they kept their lying, war-mongering Gvt. in place ?
Hmmm... that's an interesting POV, I am sure Bush et al. subsribes to that as well...
Check out my PHP Url Validator
"And page reloading can hardly be deemed illegal."
Right, and driving a car isn't illegal until you go over the speedlimit...
You definitely have a future in PR for the White House!
Here are some things to chew on:
-security is a myth, for both computers and the world. If someone is pissed enough, they'll find new and creative ways at getting their points across. If you are serious about cultivating security, get serious about addressing the complexities of issues that impact the Islamic world.
-Pan Islam: Let's see what do we need to create an unified Islamic state, I know, an universal Islamic hero, you know someone with the balls to take on America. Enter Osama. Next ingredients, war in Iraq for a nice neat regime change, which turned out to be complete chaos with three separate groups, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites all clamoring for power. Sounds like a nice breeding ground for more terrorists! LOL! Bush and his greed based policies have done a lot to cultivate these radicals. And of course, with installed regimes across the region (Egypt) who kindly obey our wishes (thanks to all of our "humanitarian aid") with out regard to their own people's wishes, you can definitely see people clamoring for change.
-Minimalizing the threat of North Korea is bizarre. They don't need WMDs to destroy Seoul, they could do it in a couple of hours with artillery alone. Not to mention they actually have the missile technology to smack Japan pretty hard with a nuke.
-"China. The roots of democracy, its only a matter of time." Dude, where's your brain? Oh ya, that's right, as long as people get to vote, we can call it a democracy. I am definitely not anti PRC. In fact, I am amazed at how they are playing their cards. Those crazy commies even have national health care! However, with Bush's brave new world, you can bet it won't be long until Taiwan is brought into the fold of the PRC.
-"Economic dependence on oil." You are totally right, we are completely dependent on a resource that won't be around forever. So drive your hummer all you want, but until we have some real leaders with a healthy respect for science, watch the planet die, and the oil run out, but at least you'll have somewhere to live!
-After all, Communism failed, therefore, our system is unquestionably correct. Dude, I am so tired of this lame ass argument. The Soviets collapsed because they over extended themselves, you know, kind of like what we are doing. Read up on the theory of hegemonic cycle, you're in college! And the notion that because communism failed, we don't need to critique the US economic system is utter stupidity. The decline in real wages over the last three decades, the environment, the lack of jobs, paying patriotic US corporations for drugs double the rate the brits do all make me scratch my head and think. Let's not forget the Savings and Loan scandal that the tax payers bailed out during Bush I. Let's not forget about Enron screwing California. Let's not forget about Global Crossing. But keep on cheering for US global corporations, and their sponsored republicrat duopoly system, better known as democracy! Feudalism sucks, unless of course, you are too blind to see it, or are too intoxicated by the emotional propaganda churned out on a daily basis.
- "there really are people who believe one true Islamic state should exist in the middle east, and have the seat of leadership in the world, and they'll do anything to achieve it." And there really are people who think that the US should use its military might, extend its economic system of control of the planet's resources and obviously will do anything to achieve it.
Final note: Its nice to see people actually engaging in a real discussion about what is going on. That damn liberal media, and those damn liberal corporations that own them are a joke.
fundamentalism has never been a problem that can be combatted by force or violence. force and violence merely whip fundamentalists into a more wild furvor. fundamentalism is a problem that needs to be taken on in a different way that one would take on a specific government - after all, the problem isn't w/ a specific government, but an ideology, and ideologies are notoriously difficult to change.
while yes, there have been a few high-profile cases of religious stuffs being removed from government areas, that doesn't mean there have been more. why would there be coupons given out to private (religious) schools, unless the government wants people to to go those schools? and what about the stink that was put up when any of those stuffs were removed? admittedly, that isn't because of g.w., but nonetheless those were government officials.
there's no good reason why a suburban can't get 40 mpg. the reason, however, is that no enough people care enough about energy use to convince manufacturers to make their vehicles more efficient. there have been a few hybrids produced recently, but they haven't been picked up because apparently they aren't expensive enough. or something. i honestly don't have any idea why people didn't stampede for these vehicles.
nt
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:oRRYUXiNU2wJ: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm+ iraq+shell+nerve+gas&hl=en
Well, I'm taking the liberty to remind you Al Gore is the former vice president, and it is a joke that I heartily enjoy. The quote is accurate. If anyone wants to, they can read the rest of the speech and see what was really meant. From the link you provided here is the entire segment:
"But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." -Al Gore
If I got a rise out of you, then GOOD! My job is done. As someone once told me, lighten up!
P.S. May the jokes never end!
P.P.S. HA!
I want my! I want my! I want my Eee PC!
Bush's religion is a joke.
Jesus says "blessed are the poor" and Bush says "tax breaks for the rich."
Religion talks about clothing the naked and feeding the hungry, and George Bush talks about cutting programs to help these people.
All in all, I don't think it's very "love thy neighbor" of him.
More like he uses the occasional God-talk to rally his base of far-right religious hypocrites who also don't practice what they preach.
Remember the hue and cry from Boston that the political protesters were sequestered to fenced, razor-wired, roofed facility away from the convention center? Neither do I. Didn't seem to make it into the papers.
Remember the outrage when "Dude, Where's My Country" and "Against All Enemies" weren't given shelf space at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and other nationsl bookstores? Neither do I. Anti-Bush books don't seem to have trouble making it onto the shelves, even if they're not Number one on Amazon.com and BN.com
I'm a supporter of free speech. I happen to think that I'm smart enough to make an informed decision, given access to the information. I think a majority of my fellow Americans would put themselves into that same bucket.
I'm sick of the hypocrisy. I enjoy hearing arguments against Bush. There are a lot of them. Some of them are even well-formed. I don't see any arguments against Kerry seeing the light of day. His lawyers and the media simply won't allow it. And it'll be a cold day in Hell before we see Nader allowed into a presidential debate. I'm just sick of it.
Let's all pick some random resident from the middle of Ohio and write him in for President in November, and be done with the whole mess.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Maybe by then some of the nations will be kind enough to absolve us of some debt like we have done to countless other nations, specifically those in Europe.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
I wouldn't really be shocked. That's why I've been telling people who consider themselves GOP that they're being fooled and used.
The leadership of the GOP and groups like the Christian Coalition are cultural bigots. I can explain it over a long discussion, and there are cultural bigots on the left. People like Janeane Garofalo are Yankee cultural bigots who think that everyone down South just votes GOP cause they're racist, ignorant inbreds who bring out all the bad Christian stereotypes. I don't agree with that thinking, and neither do people like Kerry or Clinton or Gore. One of the reasons that Southern Dems have been so successful is that they dispel most of these cultural bigotry and stick to issues. The right moves to cultural bigotry because they can't win on the issues using logic. They must resort to demagoguery in order get enough support and distract from the real issues.
I don't require cultural traditionalism or moral superiority to support my political beliefs. I can disassociate my culture and my religious beliefs from my political rational. So while I may not like the culture of some of my political opponents (or allies), I understand that their right to live as they see fit protects my right to do so. I understand that law can only be used to defend rights, not morality. My alliances are based on these principles, if my political ally moves from wanting to legislate protection of rights to legislating morality or culture, then they become my political enemy on that issue. On the other hand, I don't discount moral reasons for a policy that coincide with it's logical basis in the definition of rights. To me that's just another reason to support or oppose an issue and a way to find commonality with other voters but, it should never be a sole basis.
If you listen to the usual banter surrounding politicians in this country, they will talk about morality and values all day long. If you look at the speeches and writings by Progressive Democrats, they depend on rights as the basis for their policies. Bill Clinton said in a recent interview that he believed in internal logical consistency in the Constituion and the political ideology of this country's founding.
If you really want to find out about this stuff, read Bernard Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revolution". Bailyn won two Pulitzers for History in the 60's for his research on the American Revolution. He covers a lot of ground and does so in the context of the Revolution, instead of a modern post-mortem.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
People were so pumped up watching the convention that we had millions and millions of visitors to the website. So many in fact that we had a hard time keeping the site up. Thank You all, Vote Bush in 2004.
Sometimes, I think people are so bent on the whole "one nation, under god" in the Pledge of Alliegance that they forget that the Pledge ends "with liberty and justice for all"
Your implication that these statements are contradictory is baffling to me, as they seem to echo and substantiate eachother.
The Moore movie movement kind of says it all. These people are just going to cause trouble for no reason. Have to agree with the parent post here.
Maybe by then some of the nations will be kind enough to absolve us of some debt like we have done to countless other nations, specifically those in Europe.
And, along the same lines, you will be kind enough to absolve many developing nations from their debts, which in their cases mean a majority of their population living in crippling, often-fatal poverty?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Looking at your website I see your only 20. That brings to mind the famous quote from Churchill(although its attribution is disputed).
"If you aren't a liberal at 20 you don't have a heart; if you arent a conservative at 40 you don't have a brain."
In Soviet Russia, bin Laden votes for YOU!
I may have misattributed that quote to him.... I'm trying to find the reference. It was definately one of the looney pundits though.
I think Boortz is on my ignore list, so I usually don't drag him out except in extreme comparisons like the one above. I could have gotten him mixed up with another one like Savage on the ignore list. Anyway, I think the point still stands.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
By the way, the parent's numbers seem to come from the CIA World Factbook.
Immoral yes, illegal no. Please to tell, the law regarding refreshing a page view?
Yes guarantee was to strong a word. The fact is though that traffic can be handled and simply jumping up and whining that people who aren't interested in your message are looking at it to the detriment of those who do want to look at it sounds like idiocy.
On that note, almost every country has WMD right now. I think that makes the WMD case for war a bit daft, but that's just a personal opinion.
Only daft if you believe in moral equivalence.
If you can't see that, there's not much to discuss, unfortunately.
Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction but that was a long time ago. ... right, you pasted that he said exactly that ...
It's mind-numbingly clear that Iraq had WMD
To be fair, he is railing against the scourge of Neoconservatism, and not Republicans in general. But otherwise, it usually takes one cultural bigot to spot another cultural bigot...
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
The government (read "your tax dollars") is not responsible for covering debts incurred by private organizations, even if they are financial institutions.
That's neither here nor there; we are talking about a country's external debt as measured against its GDP. While part of that debt is indeed incurred by private organizations, so too is the country's GDP earned by private organizations. The fact that not all of the debt is governmental is immaterial when considering the financial viability of a country as a whole.
By the way, the parent's numbers seem to come from the CIA World Factbook.
Oops, I was looking at the wrong WFB page. In any case, the figures quoted in the WFB are estimates for 2001. I think the 2003 treasury figures are (a) far more trusworthy, and (b) far more relevant to the present debate.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
...but all the "ANYBODY BUT BUSH/NO BLOOD FOR OIL/OMGWTFBUSHSUX0RS" 'liberals' have completely driven me away from that side as well.
If that's your main problem then I have no clue why you would ever support the Republicans because they turn on the smear machines on full against anyone that challenges them. Specifically against Kerry:
"Assuming that the unthinkable happens and Senator Kerry becomes president..." --Neil Cavuto, Fox's managing editor for business news.
"It is clear that at least one of Kerry's Purple Heart awards was the result of his own negligence, not enemy fire, and that Kerry went to unusual lengths to obtain the award after being turned down by his own commanding officer." --Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Kerry "looks French" -- An anonymous Bush adviser told to the New York Times.
In political blogs I've seen countless right-wing proponents who claim that something to the effect of, "OMGIFSKERRYWINSWEAREALLGONNADIE!#$@!@" So please don't think that it's just the "liberals" who are even close to being guilty of this nonsense.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Denial of Service Attacks are the last refuge of the Incompetent.
You sort of had me going right up until you got to Ashcroft.
Arent' these Reloading apps similar to DOS apps?
I know that you really mean DoS apps. Seriously, you call them DOS apps and idiots will think you are talking about fscking MS-DOS.
From the latest International Jerusalem Post: Year------------Suicide Bombings 2002 46 2003 17 2004 4 All four this year were before the assasination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Personally I think Israeli tactics foment hatred, and cause more Palestinians to want to commit acts of terror. But without leaders (thanks to assassinations), weapons (thanks to raids), or physical access (thanks to seperation wall), no matter how much a Palestinian might want to kill Israelis, they can't do it.
Hacking the republican website: morally fine with me, legally not so much. At least they aren't SPAMMERS: I had to halt service at our free email server http://friscomail.org because of a Nigerian Scammer/Spammer. (Help me stop this guy - all the info is on the front page.) Personally I'd rather see the authorities go after these type of people instead of the blackhats mentioned in this article. Honestly though, is shutting down the Rep. site really going to do much other than cause inconvenience? It's the DieBold machines that need to be "taken care of"...
>> however not a single US solider has ever died for supporting Spain
Aren't you forgetting about that little skirmish called World War II in which the Americans liberated Spain?
what they're doing is a perfectly viable form of non-violent direct action. they're using technology to create the world they want rather than asking for it. i think they're doing a great thing.
s cii&q=guantanamo+&btnG=Search+News
m ID=5308§ionID=15
r man+austin&btnG=Google+Search
would you say that interrupting the workings of the Nazi party is a bad thing? how about interrupting the working of some unnamed party who rounds up individuals off the street, without trial, and holds them in jail for years without access to lawyers, torturing them all the while?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&ie=a
should we protect the speech of mass murderers who indiscriminately kill innocent people?
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s821954.htm
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?ite
http://iraqbodycount.net/
this is the digital equivalent of blocking a street to interrupt the convention. they're just holding people responsible for their actions. believe me, most of the world is vey much in support of trying to stop our government right now.
lastly, should we try to physically stop a government which is even willing to jail people for LINKING to contraband information?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=she
hyperpoem.net
(reposted with formatting, sorry) From the latest International Jerusalem Post:
Year--Suicide Bombings
2002 46
2003 17
2004 4
All four this year were before the assasination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Personally I think Israeli tactics foment hatred, and cause more Palestinians to want to commit acts of terror. But without leaders (thanks to assassinations), weapons (thanks to raids), or physical access (thanks to seperation wall), no matter how much a Palestinian might want to kill Israelis, they can't do it.
Yeah, but who is going to call in our debts? Given our military supremacy, actually having to caugh up that 6 tril isn't going to be an immediate problem.
The real financial problem for the US is not the debt itself, but related to the debt.
For the past several decades, the US could get out of financial troubles by simply printing more money. Since we had the only currency that was universally accepted as a unit of international monetary excange, this seldom caused the kind of inflation it should have. Now that the Euro is challenging the Dollar as the international currency of choice, and east Asia is talking about a unified currency, it's unlikely that we'll be able to continue this strategy.
For a long time now, money has been growing on trees for the federal government, and that's stopping fast. This could spell real danger for the US economy.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
continues to deny the British government's requests for help in brining the people who fund the IRA to justice
Like Noraid (google for it), who hide under the US freedom of speech laws.
Although to be fair, most of the Islamic extremist groups have their media centers in London hiding under similar laws in the UK so its not all that straightforward (this is why Gadaffi asked why we don't bomb London instead of Afghanistan or Iraq).
No, a terrorist is a fighter with a different view than your own. Do you think that people in Ireland think the IRA are terrorists, or do they think the SAS are terrorists? Do you think that a tribal elder in Afghanistan thinks that the Taliban were terrorists, or do they think that the Americans who bombed his sons wedding are terrorists? To the family in the west bank, do you think that they feel that hamas is a terrorist organization, or the IDF who routinely assasinate their neighbours?
Terrorist is a great label, to get your hackles up, and to de-huminize the enemy. I totally disagree with the people that you are referring to as terrorists, however, I understand why they hate you. The fact of the matter is, they are just people like you or me, except we don't have a foreign power occupying our homeland. I will assume that you are American (if not, change the place names to fit your country), how long would you put up with Mexicans occupying Southern California? Or Canada occupying Maine? Would you just sit there and say "Oh well, I guess its time to learn spanish, and proper english". Of course you wouldn't. Even if your government couldn't/wouldn't fight to take it back, you sure as hell would. And I bet you would until you won or died. I know I would.
Just remember, in France (and Holland, and Norway, and Poland, and a bunch of others) in WW2 the "resistance" was nothing more than a "terrorist" organization, the only difference is they were OUR terrorists, so they were "freedom fighters". When the mujahadeen (sp?) were kicking the hell out of the russians, they were terrorists, but again, they were ours, so we called them "freedom fighters". Its all a matter of whether or not you agree with their motivation, or not.
You think "One nation under God" correlates to the concepts of liberty and justice?
"God" is a fucking sham, man. It's Man's creation and a pretty cruel one at that. God (specifically religion) are tools to inspire fools to follow and stay in line. It does this by threatening anyone (via smiting or banishing to Hell) who questions the actions or principles that are dictated by their set of rules (these are man-made rules.)
It's an execution of liberty and justice under the condition of blind conformance.
quote /panties
rm -fr
apt-get install finger
end quote
rm -fr will remove the directory listed, and everything under it. I assume you're trying to be funny, and suggest that you're going to take off someone's panties, and then insert your finger in them. Unfortunately for you, because of the rm -fr command, there would be nothing to insert into. Better luck next time.
I think that "We want to bombard (the Republican sites) with so much traffic that nobody can get in" says it all. Intent is not hard to get when they announce it.
Oh, sure, Bush is slightly worse. But if you put two lying two-faced weasels against each other, you get a 50/50 split, just like in 2000.
To achieve a convincing win, the Democrats need a candidate with charisma who actually seems to believe in something and who has been known to take a stand during his previous political career. Saying "Well, he's not Bush" isn't enough to get people to get out there and vote.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
For the past several decades, the US could get out of financial troubles by simply printing more money. Since we had the only currency that was universally accepted as a unit of international monetary excange, this seldom caused the kind of inflation it should have. Now that the Euro is challenging the Dollar as the international currency of choice, and east Asia is talking about a unified currency, it's unlikely that we'll be able to continue this strategy.
Exactamundo -- congratulations on being the first responder to my post to get the point! Just imagine if OPEC starts pricing oil in Euros rather than dollars...
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
This is the dumbest thing I think I've read on slashdot in a long time.
I can't believe these idiots would actually think this would be constructive. Slashdot crowd needs to get together as one voice and denounce these clowns. It seems everyday slashdotters are crying about their rights being hindered. If this is allowed then I guarantee you that your rights are going to be hindered even more. And I for one will support the legislation.
Our rights exist on the simple basis that we are free to do so unless harmful to others. And this is flatout harmful to others.
Your biggest way to voice your opinion is to vote.
So you don't like the fact that he posted anonymously?
Gotta love those double standards some of you guys have.
...that is willing to challenge candidates and elected officials, and our press does not, unless the candidate or official happens to be a democrat. Half the reason for this is that the media is so afraid of accusations of being "liberally biased" that conservatives get a free pass, and the other half is that conservatives are much more organized and spend a lot more money on the media.
Want proof? Just look at the media's treatment of Clinton, Dean or Gore, and contrast their obsession with made-up scandals with their lack of interest in Bush's schenanigans. Waging a war while cutting benefits for soldiers, keeping people imprisoned indefinetly without a trial or saying "if you pay taxes, you'll get a tax cut" while compeltely ignoring those who only pay payroll taxes. Or how about how Bush can't hold an open press conference to save his life, or stand to be interviewed without a list of pre-approved questions?
I'm trying to figure out how this is 'insightful' much less deserving a 5....nope still don't get it.
I was hoping it would be Callavecci.
nothing like a little QL fan fiction to ease our political woes!
Erm, not really. The neocons are in firm control of the GOP. The greens are not anywhere near in control of the Democratic Party. While there has been a resurgence in the liberal/progressive wing of the party, there are still a lot of moderates in the leadership. If you vote for Bush, you're voting for a neocon agenda. If you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a moderate liberal agenda.
Well when you owe that much money there isn't much they can do to you because if you default on it they quite possibly could go out of business.
It is said that if you owe a million dollars you have a big problem, but if you owe 100 million dollars the bank has a big problem.
Scale that up to ~6 trillion dollars and draw your own conclusion.
It doesn't much matter why you vote, as long as you do. However, it is true that most people that intend on voting for Kerry are doing so because they hate Bush. Since most people vote based on the character of candidates rather than their issues it doesn't change anything about the way people vote. Very rarely do people vote for something. The election the consensus seems to be "Anyone But Bush"
But private organizations cannot simply tax the available GDP at whim (unless they're Microsoft) to cover debts. Governments don't borrow money against any future potential profits, they borrow it against their ability to take the money from their own tax-payers.
But if you'd rather talk national budgets, things get far uglier for Argentina:
- Washington:
- external debt--1.4e12 USD
- revenues--1.946e12 USD
- Buenos Aires
- external debt--432.7e9 USD
- revenues--44e9 USD
The US government took it slightly more than it owes foreign creditors, but the Argentine government took in only about 10% of what it owes externally.What the national government specifically owes or spends is also important because it is the government that does any borrowing from the World Bank.
Bringing down the GOP's site isn't going to do jack, or shiite.
See, the whole idea with GOP is they control the businesses. The ISP you're sending from? The GOP wants to control that. The processor you're using? That too. And the hard disk. And the monitor. And your phone. So they just tell the ISP that they hook them up on the Floor (of Congress), if they'll chuck all the 13 year olds that play this little dDoS game.
The GOP uses cellphones. They use fax machines. They use couriers and private planes. If you're a Republican, you're actually attending the meeting in person because you have the money to do it. You're not down at Game Stop, deciding which game you're going to trade in for Doom3.
But you just go right ahead and pound your dicks against their site. Hook a Fleshlight and a USB vibrator up to your wireless router, so you can FEEL the excitement.
Whatever it takes to help you sleep at night...
I would, gladly.
But, and I expect the U.S. to be handled the sameway, only if it is truely clear and evident that the country cannot fix itself and that the need for absolving the debt is not due to a leader who spends teh money for his own personal gain.
This is just a case in point:
If memory serves there was a president/leader/wahtever in Africa who was taking all sorts of US aid and used it to do things such as buy a brand new personal jet and other luxuries. This money was given to him as aid. If the people fail to remove him from office then I see no reason to absolve them of this debt. However, should they remove this person (and it's quite possible they already have) and openly admonish him, then I support absolving the debt and trying anew.
Why? Because you don't help people get on their feet by giving them everything. If you give them everything then they develop no responsibility. Whether it be individuals or nations.
The U.S. today does not need to be absolved of its debt. We are still growing and succeeding and doing fine. But should some day we become disadvantaged significantly, I expect foreign nations to help us out, since we do so much to help others out.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
is breaking the law, no matter what the motive. Greenpeace might have a good motive but it does not give them the legal right to forcibly hi-jack oil rigs(yes, ransacking it with choppers and boats then refusing to leave is forcibly). This is no different. ANY DOS attack is ILLEGAL. Freedom of speech or any other amendant does NOT give anyone the right to break the law. If they want to get their point across and not look like you average extremist whack-job they will do it the old fashion way.
Yeah, but no one is worse than Taft.
NMG
hy? Because you don't help people get on their feet by giving them everything. If you give them everything then they develop no responsibility. Whether it be individuals or nations.
That's an all-to-easy way to absolve oneself of all resposibility to one's fellow humans. Would you apply this rubric to the starving people of Darfur? To those presently homeless in Florida?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Well that, and "Under God" was an afterthought inserted into the pledge after it was written. It shouldn't even be in there.
FYI
John Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record in the senate. Edwards is not far behind. They are the DEMS candidates.
Nancy Pelosi is also extreeeeeeeeeemly liberal... another leader.
In fact, rather than going down this road. Name one conservative democrat in power. Zell Miller (resigning and voting for Bush)... now name one more... can't... that's because if you're a democrat, you can't run for a big office unless you're pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism (essentially)
It is either lack of knowledge or lack of looking that causes you to make such a blatantly false statement.
Now ask another question. How many republicans do you know that are pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, etc... and you really believe that the dems are the moderates?
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
If you don't like censorship and can have the resources to really help, perhaps the best thing to do would be to mirror the GOP site to make sure it doesn't go down.
I plan to vote Kerry, but I won't stand for censorship.
"Southern Strategy"
One group of wackos doesn't mind sacrificing me to advance their cause. The other group might make me poorer, and my ecnomy less efficient, but at least I will be alive and able to enjoy my life of poverty...
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
No matter what Gore did or said, Quayle will always be funnier. Yes, ALWAYS!
To steal a line from Lewis Black, Can you wear a tinfoil hat so we know who you are?
actually, there was no full tour of duty. Please state facts here... there was just 4 months and I think) eleven days.
Then... there's three purple hearts (one doctor said that one was for a scratch, another for a grenade he launched that sprayed sand on him - your actually only supposed to get these for enemy inflicted wounds - which is why the navy folks hate this guy by the way) and a silver start for shooting a wounded teenager in the back.
"would you say that interrupting the workings of the Nazi party is a bad thing"
Oh no! Another loony left, Stalinist crazy from moron.org strikes again.
Tell me, when did the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, the party that actually voted FOR the civil rights amendments in the 60's (while the Democratic Party members in the US Senate voted AGAINST civil rights amendments), the party that has appointed the very first black secretary of state and national security advisor as well the party that appointed the very first black Chairman of the joint chiefs, when this superb party of civil rights and democratic ideals and principles become "the Nazi Party" as you put it?
This is the kind of of hard line left wing Democratic Party hate and psychopathic ranting that have come to represent today's out of touch Democratic Party.
And this is exactly why Bush is going to clobber Kerry.
It won't even be close!!!
That's why us Republicans, tired of being bundled with neocons, have gone the way of the Libertarian party.
According to this quiz, there is something fundamentally different between being right wing, and being a libertarian. Therefore, if you were a republican with libertarian values, then you were never really a republican (unless you mean you were a member of the party). The views are fundamentally different.
For instance, given the 2 party system in the U.S. I would personally vote on the left, but only because I value my personal freedoms more than my economic ones. That doesn't mean I would be a democrat. I'm simply choosing, in my opinion, the lesser of 2 evils. I also wouldn't be opposed to voting on the right if I thought the economic freedoms were being eroded too far.
A right wing person advocates financial freedom, but thinks that the government should legislate a restrictive morality (sometimes based on religious arguments). A libertarian advocates as much freedom as possible - both social and economic freedom - until that freedom interferes with the freedom of another person.
For instance, on the issue of gay marriage, a libertarian view would be to get the government completely out of the marriage business altogether, and leave it up to the individuals to write their own contracts. There would be no legal definition of a marriage. The government would, however, enforce any contracts between persons who willfully enter into them.
As long as an action caused no harm against another citizen or their property, then a libertarian government would not have a law restricting it.
I am hoping that we have as much guts as the Spanish who had the guts to throw out a government that kept lying to them...
I am hoping that we are not as easily scared as the Spanish who backed away quickly to terrorists after a couple of bombs.
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
But if you'd rather talk national budgets, things get far uglier for Argentina:
Only if you screw up the figures. The 2003 external debt for the USA is $6.494 trillon, the figure coming from the article I posted. The 2003 external debt for Argentina was c. $145 billion (see here); I'm not sure where you got the $432.7 billon figure, but it certainly wasn't the CIA factbook, which quotes a 2002 estimated value of $142 billion.
Based on these figures, we see that the US has a debt/income ratio of 3.34, while Argentina has a debt/income ratio of 3.30.
So, once more, I'm not following your point.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Um. He was agreeing that Republicans should get a say, too. Re-read his post, and you'll see that it's "not just you" and not "just not you". In other words, he's condemning these hacker's planned actions, and saying that Republican's shouldn't be silenced.
So, basically, you're attacking someone on your own side.
Moderators: Why is this insightful again?
Well... what's the difference really. DOS apps, DoS apps. They do the same thing: hose the computer beyond all recognition. ;P
Un-news
My father and stepmother for two off the top of my head. They voted for Bush in 2000 based on economics and tradition, but will not be voting for him in 2004, beacuse of the war.
Not everyone who votes for a candidate agrees with their total platform; indeed, I have yet to meet anyone in person who does.
Who the hell is this 'Kelly'...and what is he running for?
I can see you're a foreigner, but Kelly is a 'she', not a 'he'.
Or may be you're an American, thinking that only men can run for President.
And If you vote for Kerry you're still a Liberal, Socialist, Communist, wheather or not YOU agree with them they are still left of center. Is that what you are saying. Ya know John Kerry was in Cambodia, or was he? Just like we need to pull out the troops, but not now, no... not now.
Before I voted AGAINST IT
They could always put the GOP website on the SCO servers... they can withstand anything... except a couple gigs/sec :D
Well, that does it for me.
I'm voting "Predator" in 2004!
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
"what they're doing is a perfectly viable form of non-violent direct action. they're using technology to create the world they want rather than asking for it"
Even if its killing Free speech in America, the very basis of our democracy?
Oh I forget, you left wing nasties are only for free speech when when left wing Nazis like Michael Moore manufacture vicious anti-American pieces of fiction.
This "create the world they want " wouldn't be Stalin's Russia by any chance will it? Where anyone who doesn't agree with you is carried off in the middle of the night so he can't criticize John Kerry, like you guys are even now trying to muzzle the swift vets who have exposed John Kerry's Vietnem lies, as we speak?
You gotta be kidding, creep!
To stop John Kerry and fight for free speech go to SWIFTVETS.COM and contribute in this fight for free speech, a fundamental right of every American!!
...I thought the entire 'right to bear arms' and 'no standing army' provisions of the constitution were designed to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government, if they so chose?
Yes, but instead of citizens fighting the government we would end up having bunch of criminal groups fighting for their own cause. Think KKK or neo-nazis armed to teeth going for a killing spree influenced by their ideas. The common citizen wants to be productive, NOT organizing military groups.
Besides, gee, it's 21st century. Shouldn't we resolve conflicts by discussion (at least within US) instead of armed forces?
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
You are so wrong. Ten years ago, most internet users were liberal college professors and students. I should know, I was one of them. If you poll most AOL users, you will find that most of them support Bush and GOP.
as long as those others don't try and express their religious views
Translation: "as long as those others don't try and shove their religious views down other people's throats"
or views they don't agree with, or are conservatives
Translation: "are catching up (about 30 years too late) to the fact that the media wont challenge conservatives on their lies, so they had better get off their asses and do it themselves"
Yeah - but about them believing in something... I was being a little sarcastic in that if you know they're liars, how can you trust what they say they believe in?? They're just saying it for your vote!
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
This coming from someone who starts a post with
HAHAHAHA
I hope you're having fun in your middle school's computer lab.
He may have lied about(brace yourself & hide the children)owning an SUV. I dont even have a link to this, but i'm sure the liberal media is actively hiding it 15 pages deep into a google-search. The horror. I know, i know, i'm still trying to recover just like you. This man is clearly a threat to national security when compared to the incumbant.
If you think
I'm not trying to criticize you here, but I think I should post a correction: your post is only really meaningful if one does two things:
1. Count only governmental aid. The U.S. is different from most other Western countries in that we are not a centralized, government-controlled society (although admittedly we become more so every year). The percentage of private vs. government aid is much higher for the U.S. that it is for most other countries.
2. Ignore perhaps the most colossal subsidy of all: Defense. For 50 years, the only thing preventing the Red Army from pouring through the Fulda Gap and into Western Europe, or the North Koreans from smashing through the DMZ into South Korea, was the U.S. military. Same situation vis-a-vis China and Taiwan. Freed from the colossal burden of defense spending, those countries used their resources instead to develop stable polities, healthy economies and the freedom to bitch about the U.S. everytime something goes wrong.
- Alaska Jack
"You yourself are an idiot, but there's an underlying truth to what you're saying. The more grotesque, destructive and hate-filled RNC protests turn out to be, the more votes that get swung to Bush. We'll see how it plays out."
So the implication you're making - which outweighs the idiocy of your cynicism - is that the republicans want to sabotage thier online presence so as to garner support?
This is an interesting way of saying that the real hackers - who obviously are Bush HATERS - are the victims, and thusly victimism is the base by which all Democrat arguments stand.
So, exposing yourself as a liberal Bush hater is more akin to admotion of self-righteousness, counter to your scrupulous premonition of demogougery.
Fool.
Like companies, political parties are never going to change unless you take your business elsewhere.
Want to put a little more bite in your bark? Put all your political activism into threatening (and backing it up) to vote for someone else until politicians start representing you instead of playing the game. They know they can get away with it these days because most of the country is so polarized to one side or the other that they can't see straight -- fighting over which politician sucks the least instead over which politician is the best.
This argument is easily found on both sides throughout the spectrum. One of the more visible examples of this are those who are voting Kerry not to put him into office but because they hate Bush -- these folks are putting a lot of money into advertising to: "Anyone but Bush" is a common phrase.
Just food for thought. Maybe we'll start getting a little better representation in 20 or 30 years.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
-----------------------
You are what you think.
"I'm against Bush but I don't want to kill him or take down his server or rage about how he's a filthy liar. I just want people not to vote for him because he hasn't done a very good job."
Me too!
I've been accurately called a small-goverment Liberal and socially-Liberal + fiscally-Conservative. Too bad I can't get all of that in the same candidate (or at least in any candidate that has a chance of winning this election).
For now, though, I'll settle for Kerry who hasn't started any wars lately.
Um, where is free speech being stiffled?
Freedom of speech includes the right to disagree. You're even allowed to argue out loud.
I'd also like to point out how you placed all slashdotters in one basket there.
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
After reading the posts on this particular topic, I'm amazed at how quickly the /. community retreats to the rhetorical (albeit slightly better researched and intelligent) arguments on both sides of the Bush vs. Kerry argument.
I'm not going to advocate either candidate here as I don't really think it really matters. Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war. I know that service speakes to the character of each man, but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?
The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin. Is your real tax burden really going to go down under either administration? Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration? John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like. George W. Bush signed on one of the largest entitlements in over 30 years. While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact? How many of us really believe that the cause of liberty (which I differentiate from freedom to include a measure of responsibility) will be championed by either man?
Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness, and neither man will work toward true liberty for the citizens of the US.
Sure, John Kerry will not appoint someone as scary as Ashcroft as Attorney General, but he will appoint an equally scary Janet Reno clone. Political Correctness will be the blinders Mr. Kerry will strap on each of us to blind us from the harsh realities he doesn't believe we're capable of handeling.
On the other hand, George W. Bush won't hasten the demise of free speech via PC activism, but will use national security to the same end the blinders Mr. Kerry would see implemented. Neither man believes we the people are capable of managing our own lives and protection.
Sure GWB lowered taxes and I've heard the various arguments for and against them (left: only the rich get tax cuts, right: the rich pay the bulk of the taxes so who else should get the cuts) ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Kerry has said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts, he's raised taxes every times he's been asked, so I believe he'll do it again. Bush tells us that the he wants the tax cuts to be permanent, but increases entitlement spending. Neither candidate is interested in really reducing the tax burden on most families. That would mean cutting too deeply into pet projects of our various congresscritters.
Why is there even a debate here about taxes? What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years? We dump more and more money into social problems only to find them getting worse. Why not try a different approach? Oh yeah, beacuase both parties have a vested interest in getting people addicted to the heroine that is government assistance. Neither party wants to see Americans independant, able to successfully function on their own, and provide for their families needs. Republicans want us to need them for personal protection and to be good little consumers, and Democrats want us to need them for everything else.
Under either candidate's adminstrations we'll still have to deal with Ridges Retards poking around our personal possessions at airports. Under either candidate, the war on terror will take a surprisingly similar look and feel as the war on drugs. Color coded alert levels are now a permanent fixture of life here in the USA. Neither candidate will lift a finger to attempt to discredit the animating ideas that inflames those who would do us harm. While Kerry would capitulate to world opinion before acting and allow terrorists the exclusive right to the use of force, Bush's approach tends to feed fuel to the fire.
A vote for Kerry means higher taxes, a PC system designed to inhibit thoughtful int
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
You're a "bit annoyed" by what's going on? Do you actually enjoy being a big nigger? Please, your opinion has no value, stop posting here.
all men are created equal
applies to men and women of all colors, creeds and political parties. Even the conservatives.
Un-news
Sorry, too much coffee. The first question should have been more specific: "Um, where is free speech being stiffled by slashdotters (in particular)?"
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
I think 'stop raping your daughters' would be a better message that 'use this condom when you force yourself on that 12yo virgin girl in the misguided belief that it will cure your AIDs, you freak'
Valeria Plame recommended her husband for the trip, implying that she wasn't undercover and therefore it wasn't illegal to disclose her identity.
Khan's identity was disclosed by a Pakistani official and published by the New York Times.
1. Count only governmental aid. The U.S. is different from most other Western countries in that we are not a centralized, government-controlled society (although admittedly we become more so every year). The percentage of private vs. government aid is much higher for the U.S. that it is for most other countries.
Firstly, I'm not sure I understand your comments about centralized, government-controlled societies. Are you claiming that Germany is not a federal republic? Or Switzerland? Are you claiming that in the UK, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not have regional semi-independence?
Secondly, I've heard this claim about private vs. public donations. I would be willing to listen if you could back it up with some facts and/or figures.
2. Ignore perhaps the most colossal subsidy of all: Defense. For 50 years, the only thing preventing the Red Army from pouring through the Fulda Gap and into Western Europe, or the North Koreans from smashing through the DMZ into South Korea, was the U.S. military. Same situation vis-a-vis China and Taiwan. Freed from the colossal burden of defense spending, those countries used their resources instead to develop stable polities, healthy economies and the freedom to bitch about the U.S. everytime something goes wrong.
Well, not altogether. Both the UK and France have had viable nuclear deterrents since the 1950s, although it is debatable whether these would ever have been useful in preventing a conventional invasion through Eastern Europe. In any case, however, its important to note that the US expenditure on defence has often had a very damaging effect on the poorest countries of the world. During the Star Wars programme of the 1980s, the US went through a capital crisis, and hiked up the interest rates many-fold on the foreign debt it held.
Unfortunately, much of this debt was in the forms of loans to third-world countries. These loans were made in the late 1970s, when the US was awash with cash from Middle-East oil-producing nations; hence they had low, affordable repayment rates. The hike in interest rates in the 1980s, caused indirectly by Star Wars expenditure, raised these repayment rates to crippling levels, which is one of the reasons so many third-world countries are in such a dire state today.
This is only one example; I'm not trying to convince you to change your argument completely, simply attempting to show you that there are more subtleties to the issues at hand than might appear to be the case.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Ok, Twice now youve posted about how the KKK is associated with the GOP. Youre mistaken. The KKK is a democratic organization. Google it. As for the founding fathers, they believed in small goverments. NOT big governments. They would roll over in their grave if they saw all the welfare systems and medicare and stuff that we provide. Yes, they were liberal, but that was liberalism in another time frame. What you REALLY mean you are is a LIBERTARIAN. Which is a conservative party. So go ahead and talk all big and mighty. But at least do your homework first.
Clones are people two.
>Tell me, when did the Republican Party ...
>become "the Nazi Party" as you put it?"
When they started failing the "walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" test. The label does not matter, but the actions do. The actions of today's Republican party reveal many of the same kinds of authoritarian, statist ideals that characterize the type of government that we are supposed to be violently opposed to as Americans.
His name is Richard Clarke.
Also, if you really believe Republicans are any more "honest and up-front" than Democrats then I recommend you read Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. I'm afraid Franken's glib, smart-arse tone will probably not incline you to listen to what he has to say; but it's hard to argue with the evidence he presents of systematic deceit in the media and in government.
1) I have no responsibilty to other humans, and they have none to me. I donate time and money to charities out of the goodness of my heart, not out of any responsibility. I help out my fellow humans because I want them to succeed as much as I want myself to, not because of a responsibility.
2) I am not familiar with Darfur nor the activities taking place there, so I can't comment.
3) My parents are still homeless thanks to Isabel. What aid they did receive from the government wasn't enough to cover much of anything. That aside, we're not giving those presently in Florida "everything." We're working to help them replace what they already had, which most likely wasn't given to them, but earned.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Give it up, these pinkly commie liberals, are like islamic extremists, they are so convinced in their hate for Bush, that anything they do to get rid of him is justified.
Typical liberals.
There those fundies go with their abstinence...
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
I am not familiar with Darfur nor the activities taking place there, so I can't comment.
Oh, don't worry about it, just a little light genocide.
We're working to help them replace what they already had, which most likely wasn't given to them, but earned.
This 'earned' notion has nothing to do with charity. The people of Florida haven't ever done anything to 'earn' my loyalty; hell, I'm not even a US citizen. But that didn't stop me from giving to the Red Cross to help them out.
The onus is not on the needy to get over their sense of entitlement. The onus is on the well-off to recognize their resposibility to others less fortunate than themselves. Of course, nobody can -- or should -- enforce this responsibility; but nevertheless, duty to others is a fundamental part of what makes us human.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
STFU, you Republican troll. Yo're just trying to discourage democrats from voting bushitler out of office. Crawl back under your rock, fascist pig.
and I'll have no problem filing charges for any DOS attack. The left preaches tolerance, but in reality they are only tolerant of those who agree with them. Just check DemocraticUnderground for one of many examples.
How many conservatives were arrested for disrupting the Dem convention? How many DOS attacks were there on Dem sites? This becomes more like the civil war each passing day, just without the clearly defined borders.
Not to mention that he voted for the frickin' Iraq war.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
>>Aren't you forgetting about that little skirmish called World War II in which the Americans liberated Spain?
Aren't you forgetting that little skirmish called the Spanish Civil War which kept Spain out of that little skirmish called World War II?
Perhaps you could explain the logical connection between a political system favoring self-government by individuals (no rulers), and DDoSing web sites?
You may think that it was clear from your reply, but it wasn't.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
...and which party is trying to intimidate "get out the vote" campaigners in Florida? http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/w eek_2004_08_15.html#001700
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
OK. I appreciate your attempt to give this matter some reasonable, balanced thought. Seriously, I'm not just saying that, I do. But some of the ways you have framed this issue are so shallow as to be cartoonish.
"How can you have a party that believes that parents should have the right to choose what school their children go to but that they're not bright not moral enough to choose whether or not to keep their child?"
These two issues are simply, well, two different issues. Do I believe people should be able to choose what school their child attends? Sure. Do I believe people should be able to choose when, where and with whom to have sex? Of course. Do I believe people should be able to kill other people they find inconvenient? No. How "bright" or "moral" the people are has nothing to do with either of these things.
Is this a "binary" decision? Sure. But if you told me you believe it's wrong to massacre Jews just because someone finds them inconvenient, I wouldn't say "You know, you're problem is you're treating it as a binary issue. You're either for it or against it; you can't be ambivalent or vote to control the amount of something."
"Pragmatic decisions like keeping abortion legal,"
Sure, abortion is (or can be, anyway) pragmatic. Absolutely. It would also be pragmatic to round up all the crippled, the insane, the sick and the social malcontents and humanely and painlessly exterminate them. So obviously, how pragmatic the solution may or may not be is not the issue we are dealing with.
"but dumping money into support and pro-child advertising campaigns to reassure scared young mothers that they don't have to kill their child, are seen as wishy washy liberalism -- even if such programs are met with greater success -- because they do not accept the artifical polarity forced onto the issue by idealistic conservatives."
You overlook a few obvious problems here. For starters, it's one thing for a private person or group opposed to abortion to "dump money" into an advertising campaign -- many groups already do this. A conservative would see such an effort as noble and compassionate -- not "wishy washy liberalism" as you put it. But the law is another thing. It is entirely appropriate to believe that it should not be *legal* for anyone to kill what you believe is an innocent human life, and to lobby the government to protect those lives.
What amazes ME is how the ani-abortion folks get caricatured as evil religous zealots. But of the two sides, they are clearly the ones who are more fighting on principle, with less to personally gain. I might fight to protect the life of an unborn innocent, but I'd also fight to protect YOUR life if someone suggested we could really solve a lot of problems by exterminating all liberals, or Pennsylvanian VW drivers, or whatever.
- Alaska Jack
Or script kiddies? You decide.
The Geek Crew
Haven't we learned by now that the current administration thrives on deficiencies in information? Won't DDOSing republican sites simply help them in their strategy of spreading ignorance and blind faith?
I think the best thing that could happen to the Bush campaign would be an attack on the republican convention which knocked out all news feeds. Then they can point fingers at the "Evil Terrorists" who don't want Americans to express their "Freedom" by hearing from, and voting for, the current Anti-Terrorist administration.
Remember that the campaign in 2000 was won by a candidate who refused all public debates until the final days leading up to November 2nd.
Seldom do I post "flamebait", but I am ultimately quite disgusted by the "news" of h8x0rs planning a large-scale attack on either of the political parties, admittedly, I am a Republican, but this is total shit, and it's probably a bunch of little lamerz somewhere that aren't old enough to even vote. There's a reason the vote is given to 18 and older, non-felons.
/. for giving them a stage.
I hope these folks meet with justice swiftly, as their desire to disrupt the political machine is akin to bombing a train station in Madrid. - I leave this parallel as an exercise to the reader. The first ammendment does allow them to protest, but it doesn't permit them to deny someone else's speech with their actions.
It's ironic that the internet gives people in other countries (and certainly some of these lamerz are) the rights (on some level) that the US has, and they in many cases may not, and at that very instant they use them to deny the rights of others.
Shame on any of you that condone this behavior. Black-hats are not good for ANY of us, and shame on
The actions of today's Republican party reveal many of the same kinds of authoritarian, statist ideals that characterize the type of government that we are supposed to be violently opposed to as Americans."
Yeah?
As against today's Democratic Party which is controlled by the Nazi Fascists at Moveon.org, who make Stalin look like the boys scouts?
Or today's Democratic Party, which is as rotten to the core as the totally corrupt Jim McGreevy , the Democratic governor of New Jersey, who even as we speak, has hired his gay lover, with no experience whatsoever in security matters, as the head of the entire Department of Homeland Security in New Jersey? Even though the guys was a foreigner and was not clearedd to handle sensitive classified FBI material?
And all this at a time when we are under constant attack from Al Quaeda terrorists?
Is this also the same Democratic party , whose top campaign official in New Jersey, rented a hooker to go have sex with a the government official that was investigating him for tax crimes, then turned round and sent that sex take to that official's wife, when the official refused to give in to blackmail?
The Democratic party of America has sunk to new lows in corruption and sleaze, apart from being the party that is hell bent on crushing free speech in America.
Compared to you guys, the Republican Party look like angels!
Oh, don't worry about it, just a little light genocide.
.. 93? I believe it was "So what?"
Oh, in that case, I'll bite. I take the same position as Bill Clinton and the U.N. did during the genocide in Rwanda in
No, in all seriousness, I don't support genocide. So somebody should go over there and step in. Being from the U.S., I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. So, I'll be damned for doing and I'd send in the U.S. military and *not* as a U.N. operation.
The onus is not on the needy to get over their sense of entitlement. The onus is on the well-off to recognize their resposibility to others less fortunate than themselves.
No, there is no onus. There is no responsibility of a person who fought tooth and nail to get what he has to help out those who do not fight tooth and nail to get their own slice of the pie.
You giving a Floridian money does not constitute you being loyal, merely good at heart.
And your giving to the Red Cross actually doesn't guarantee any Floridian will get any money. If I'm not mistaken, the Red Cross will take your money, put it into a big pool of money and at some arbitrary time decide an arbitrary amount of money will be given victims in Florida. If you recall back in 2001 the Red Cross got a lot of flack for doing this with 9/11 because they weren't giving all of their donations to 9/11 victims, instead they were keeping some of the cash in case of another catastrophe (a smart move, in my humble opinion). But that's getting off topic.
Anyways, we're arguing two entirely different belief structures which aren't going to change, so I'm done.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire
henry -- the human evolution news relay
All Republicans should be forced to wear a pink elephant patch on their clothing like the Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. Democrats on the other hand should have a big L tattoo-ed permanently on their foreheads. L stands for Liberal not Loser contrary to popular belief.
After the Persian Gulf War ('91). The UN destroyed some WMD and inspections continued under increasing harrassment. Sadaam's sons-in-law went to Syria and told the UN there were still biological weapon programs and where to find them (around 1995 I think). With this information, the UN was able to locate and then destroy more WMD. This episode, and the fact Sadaam never really cooperated and harassed the UN inspectors led everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY (Not just Bush, read Kerry's and Clinton's comments from 1998 on the subject) to conclude that Iraq still had WMD hiding and they were playing games with the UN.
This continued cat and mouse game continued with the inspections leading upto the Iraq war, although not as intensively.
Want to put a little more bite in your bark? Put all your political activism into threatening (and backing it up) to vote for someone else until politicians start representing you instead of playing the game.
Then please, please, please vote for someone besides Kerry. All you do by voting Democrat is to assert that you agree with the two party either/or system that has so alienated the populace that most people don't even bother to vote.
Maybe your Libertarian|Green|Reform|Other vote this year will mean Bush will be in office for four more. But that's a small price to pay to make sure that "we'll start getting a little better representation in 20 or 30 years" for our children and grandchildren.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
You just made the "active, propagandizing partisan" list.
Next you will be telling us the GOP invented fiscal conservatism.
"The worst part about something like this is that the neo-left needs to be a group that places evidence and facts before ideology."
I'll see your comment and raise you:
1. EVERY individual and group should place evidence and facts before ideology.
2. ALMOST ALL individuals and groups instead pick their ideology first and look for evidence that supports it (or weakens competing ideologies) later.
3. ALL individuals and groups can see those who disagree with them doing #2.
4. ALMOST NONE can see themselves doing #2, even as they do it.
The point is that Bush and his administration have proven themselves to be neocon/theocons. On the other side, Kerry hasn't done anything that justifies putting him in the wacko tree-hugger camp.
No matter what side of the political spectrum you're leaning towards - to reelect a proven failure won't make things better.
Just a quick question, if they dont find a nuke... but they find 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, is it NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
2 01.stm
c lear/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872
Should we call tons of enriched uranium, a "PWMD (Potential Weapon of Mass Destruction)"?
or:
"ASTBWBWMD (A Soon To Be Wanna Be Weapon of Mass Destruction )"
And for those of you dont believe anything else than CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nu
Although they called it 'low-enriched', and only sutable for making a 'dirty-bomb'... Are dirty bombs not 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'?
I don't think anyone is opposed to the Iraqi people being better off, it's the reasoning for it. Instead of making up some crap about wmd's why didn't Bush just come out and say 'look this ass has been killing x people per year, is disregarding UN requirements on a lot of things' it is the worlds duty to the Iraqi people to stop this crap from happening any longer.
I would have supported that, and I don't think anyone could have said no to that, except maybe the majority of the American public.
And whatever has happened to Afganistan for god's sake! The country seems like it's collapsing and we don't hear a word about it. If the US had send a quarter of the troops it has in Iraq we probably would have had Osama by now. It just looks like sloppy work, go in bomb everything, not even eliminating the thread properly and leave. It's if you got surgery for cancer, and they just sort of took out some flesh around the cancer growth, closed you up and called it a day, not even following up whether it was removed completely or not.
I think this is what is pissing 'the world' off so much, the US goes in bombing, but there is little followthrough or planning for the aftermath. People just don't swith from a very long totalitarian regime to democracy overnight.
Wow. You will certainly convince me to become a dyed-in-the-wool conservative if you can only back this up by posting the voting history (by party) on a few important pieces of civil rights legislation.
Or would that make it too obvious what a liar you are?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
"If you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a moderate liberal agenda."
Moderate liberal agenda? From the guy with the most liberal voting record in the Senate? Even farther left than Teddy "nutjob" Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton.
This is the problem, people do what the television tells them. Who raises the money, who gives the money, why, how, and so on are the merest minutiae compared to the real problem. The average voter is a moron who can be swayed by 30 seconds of TV.
Which party controls the educational agenda that produces these morons? Which party has dumbed down the population in order to create people stupid enough to vote for them? Which party enjoys the chauvinistic fealty of the NEA? Which party controls the colleges?
It ain't the Libertarians. It ain't the Republicans. Inarguably, the Guilty Party is the Democrat Party. They've created millions of Dummycrats!
I agree. Anything that even looks like an attack on the Republican's Internet infrastructure will result in more controls being slapped on the 'Net. Never mind that the controls will likely be unconstitutional. The courts in this country have a long history of allowing administrations to get away with almost civil liberty infringements so long as there is a "war" on.
It would be incredibly convenient for Bush to be able to use "cyber-terrorism" as an excuse to demand the passage of PATRIOT II. It is not smart to deliberately taunt Texas' favorite village idiot, he has the power to make things go from bad to worse quickly.
George W. Bush - born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Why is it that the democrats are always 'marching' and 'protesting' and now 'hacktivists'... and they're bigotry concerning the NJ Governor....
When was the last time that Republicans went out and disrupted their opposing party ?
Why is it okay for all of these protests and massively disruptive/destructive things, but not okay for 'Girlie Men' comments ?
Name one thing that a Republican can 'get away with', that a Democratic can't.
Sometimes I wonder about my fellow Americans.
>I would urge all people who do not agree with the White House to _write_ them, whether it's by email or snail mail.
Where do I write the White House? president@whitehouse.gov? Why waste your time on something that's not even going to be read? I'd argue it's more productive to count to 1000.
>The politics in this country are awful enough without resorting to a new low.
New low? What could be lower than the current charrade? I don't see what a slashdotter could possibly do to be lower than the President. Even if you went on a strict diet of stupid sandwiches, you'd still have a hard time to even come close.
You still don't get it, do you? Although we are a dying breed, there are still some of us who are not complete pushovers and we refuse take it up the ass with a smile on our face.
This is so typical of liberals/democrats. If they can't win fair and square, they resort to dirty tricks, lying, and cheating.
Don't give me that crap about the Florida vote in the last election. The dems were trying every way they could to block military absentee votes and their friends in the media announced the winner in the state way before the polls had closed in the panhandle of the state.
If you've ever heard the joke about the dead voting, remember it's democratic dead voters who are voting. Just like dems encourage non-citizens to vote.
Who is always opposed to voter ID? Correct, democrats again.
Who said, "Vote early and vote often." A fucking democrat.
Face it. Democrats are the most underhanded cheaters in any election. Case closed.
Mod this flamebait if you wish. You can't handle the truth.
it doesn't matter how many were queuing up to join, by the late 80's the IRA was thoroughly infiltrated via human and technical means to the point where it could achieve very little successfully. it was forced to the negotiating table. likewise in the mid sixties during the reign of the super-grasses the IRA was bent over the and recieveing some rough therapy, sadly it was deemed unconstitutional to get convictions in such a manner and so the method was sadly abandonned.
if you vote for Kerry, you're supporting all the wacko Greenpeace, tree-huggin, anti-capitalist, anti-trade communists,
What are you talking about? Kerry voted for NAFTA, fer cryin' out loud. He went to Vietnam and blew away a bunch of "communists". He voted for war in Iraq, and plans to keep troops over there instead of pulling them out. His wife is worth half a billion dollars.
So he's a pro-capitalist, pro-trade, anti-communist politician. I don't really know how he differs from Bush in a practical sense except his money is in ketchup instead of oil.
Instead of war on Iraq, he'd probably have invaded Italy to get all their tomatoes.
I'm a liberal because the Founding Fathers were liberals.
The founding fathers were classically liberal, which is somewhat different from modern liberalism. The only real difference is property rights: as I classical liberal, I believe in an absolute right to property, whereas a modern liberal might be in favor of high rates of taxation.
The founding fathers were much more libertarian than modern democrats.., but certainly they were not theocratic conservatives like Coultier. I must ask though: are you in favor of the second amendment? It amazes me how so many liberals are supposably in favor of civil liberties, yet they totally deny the efficacy of that significant liberty.
Certainly, you are correct, the founding fathers were liberal, but in a slightly different sense of the word than modern liberals, though there are many similarities. In other words: the founding fathers were liberals who supported the second amendment, and were opposed to the usurpation of property rights.
I agree. If these guys were real hackers, they would rig the screens at the convention and the RNC web site to play video of Colin Powel and Rice saying that Iraq was "contained" in July of 2001 and then play video of Bush talking about WMDs with the word "LIARS" super-imposed. That would be hacking. DOS attacks are for script kiddies.
You sir are both a liar and troll and I really wish slashdot wasn't so full of people like yourself who have about as much of an ability to think for themselves as your average houseplant. You take in and regurgitate other people's opinions maybe you should take the time to validate their facts first. The trucks were found as well as numerous other items some of which I certainly consider weapons capable of mass destruction like long range missiles, serine gas, mustard gas, bomb vests and the like. You may not like the US President and that's your prerogative but if you think you can come in here and spout off the bullshit like you just did then your wrong. You can take your micheal moore is my hero t-shirt and shove it straight up your ass cause I for one am not buying the bullshit anymore.
rm -fr must be the trendy French version of rm -rf :-)
How about apt-get remove panties and finger [girl's name here]?
I didn't wake up exactly at 6 this morning and got about 5 minutes of what looked like George Bush campaign commercials - but it turned out to be some sort of news report, but it consisted of clips from Bush speeches and a bit of commentary. This was followed by a single clip of Kerry and then off to some other story. Now, I was half asleep still, but those percentages are not too far from what I've seen at other times on the major news carriers.
It seems to me that the republicans have lots of free speech. I'm not advocating DOS'ing their server but I would suggest that between all the right wing nutjobs on the radio and the "mainstream media" that seem to do 1 minute of Bush for every 10 seconds of Kerry, and of course Fox News ("fair and balanced" - as long as you are right wing), for the republicans to find their website getting a bit slow is not really a catastrophe.
Yeah, Al Franken. The comedian and, might I add, the Lying Liar that Tell[s]...
What was that? Oh, yeah, Lies.
When he's not such a blatent hypocrite, then he might get some of my time. Er, no he won't, because he's nothing more than just another famous person who thinks that by virute of that status he has some special gift and people should listen to him.
Blocking access to the opponent is precisely what we must NOT do if we are interested in preserving democracy.
This may be hard to believe these days but this system depends on a vanishing sort of genteel competition in order to flourish. Whoever wins, the important thing is that the process has been upheld, and the people have spoken. It's not whether you win or lose, the all important thing is how you played the game.
These black hat tactics will more likely shift votes to the Republicans as a backlash. They will certainly not help Democrats. The real loser(s) are Americans and the entire ideal of freedom and fair play and an open selection of who we want to govern the country.
If anybody should be prosecuted as the real enemies of freedom in the ultimate sense it should be those who interfere with voting, campaigns, or any kind of communication between and among the people and the candidates.
I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this hackage...
...d00d.
Be a Libertarian like me. It's all about the freedom.
Dean signed civil unions into law in Vermont because he said he believed it was the right thing to do, even though it was a very unpopular move.
Kerry, on the other hand, has never done anything that he didn't think would ingratiate himself with the public, as far as I can tell.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Err simple. Most of that money is owed to US citizens...
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
It's time for the Republican party to put banner ads on their website - from people who will pay per view (not per click). Use the protests to their advantage.
The key to the original posters argument is that so many people parrot the line "the rich support only Republicans while Democrats are the party of the people"
/. about how all the guys from Enron were getting off scott-free were unfounded yet people still persist that since they contributed they must have major influence? Doesn't the same hold true for Kerry and his group?
Sorry, but neither party is the "party of the people". They both suck and anyone voting for either just compounds the issue.
I would not vote for Bush in 04 but at the same time I will not vote for a liar either. 6 of one or half dozen of another I see no difference in either party. The Republicans tell you how they will screw you and the Democrats lie to you and then screw you.
As for donations, nothing shows which party is more connected with the little person than the number of 2k donations.
As for the big business men in Bush's background, how many are not in being pursued by Justice? I don't see them getting any favors from Bush. All the rants from previous months on
Sheesh, I would rather have an ACTIVE president and CEO of halliburton in office before having a trial lawyer as VP.
In my old job, The first time the terror alert went up, we made sure all of the doors on our (non-dangerous, non-classified, entomology) labs locked. And then we actually locked them when we went home.
These days, I don't pay attention to it anymore, and I'd be surprised if anyone else pays attention anymore either. In my new job (same university, different department), security is more of a concern, so we always lock the doors when we go home anyway -- so there's no difference.
Since nothing has happened, I barely pay any attention to it. It's the system that cried wolf.
I'd venture to say that 3/4 of them were raised by mommy and daddy wasn't home to spank little Johnny when he acted up. (eg Johnny Taliban's dad who ran off with another man)
Err simple. Most of that money is owed to US citizens...
No, the $6.494 trillion debt being discussed in this thread is external debt. Therefore, by definition, it is not owed to US citizens.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
that makes people so stupid?
I've never understood the midwest.
The point was that if you want to associate left-wing wackos with the Dems, then you logically must associate right-wing wackos with the GOP. Besides, do you really think voting KKK members are rallying for Kerry this year? The remnants of Southern racism haven't been hiding out in the Democratic Party... I dare you to prove otherwise.
As for your assertion of small governments instead of big government, it's non-sensical. You can't base a political party on some vague idea about the size of government. The Founding Fathers believed in right-sized government. They placed no virtue on the size of any government. They believed that rights must be defended, if the government was not defending the rights of it's citizens, then it had no business doing it. Now, where you wind up losing the small government argument is that the Founding Fathers also believed in the Right of Opportunity. In other words, they believed as long as there was fair opportunity for each person to create wealth, the Federalist democratic system would survive. The Libertarians like to crow about how they are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers, they're not. The closest group they resemble are the Anti-Federalists, who lost, now get over it. The liberalism of the Founding Fathers is the same as the liberalism of the Progressive movement, it's just that a lot of people misinterpret the liberalism of the Founding Fathers through a prism of American Mythology. Not to mention that under Clinton, the size of the Federal government fell per capita to pre-FDR levels. The Democrats can provide the right of opportunity on the cheap, better than the right, who simply want to deny any expansion of rights. Denying the expansion of rights in the face of overwhelming evidence would be abhorred by most of the Founding Fathers. Some of the virulent Anti-Federalists might agree with you, but they became marginalized.
As far as trying to paint me as a libertarian, please. Republicans have tried to say they agree with me too. When I look at what the leaders of any political party are saying, when I read their thinkers books and listen to their speeches, the Democratic Party is currently making the most sense. The Libertarians have no concept of modern society and seek to bring back the failures of the Articles of Confederation. The GOP is a cultural bog of pseudo libertarians, traditionalists, corpratists and theocrats. There's a reason they got 8% of the black vote and 22% of the latino vote. The American Greens are ineffectual idealists who eschew wealth and thus eschew power, not to mention they sometimes resort to leftist theocratic arguments. I won't even get into the Reform Party or the Natural Law guys.
I've done my homework, I've read the documents, the analysis, the history. I continue to do it. All of my research says that the Progressive movement in America, which is best explimpified in the modern Democratic Party, is the best hope to fufill my duty of insuring the survival of the ideals of the American Revolution. They are my best bet to have the rights afforded me by the Revolution, and the struggle since, protected.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
> ...one shell containing a small amount of Sarin...
Ignoring the other shells found for a second, that "one shell" did indeed have a full compliment of Sarin. It was just detonated improperly, and thus the copious starter chemicals didn't get a change to mix.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Yeah kinda like the republican losers who called up movie theaters to try and strongarm them into dropping F911 because they didnt agree with it...and the ones who showed up at the theaters and protested. Real "free speech" people.
This page-refresh based "DDOS" is legal, and while I don't condone it, I am not surprised that the "censorship party of dirty tricks" may suffer some turnabout.
The difference between the radical hackers and the radical republicans is, the republicans have seized power, and are murdering god's children so they can have bigger SUVs for their big, fat, armchair patriot asses...
The phrase "By any means necessary" comes to mind, because this battle in November is more about an emergency civil rights crisis than "fair elections," esp since they showed us in 2000 that elections cannot be relied upon anyway. The very electoral system we use is designed to allow hicks overrule blacks and hispanics...
in your description, because after all, occupation IS their specialty.
would you do it?
"Kerry has made it clear that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, if we had had the support of the world to do it."
So Kerry defines his moraly based on the opinions of of others? Cowabunga dude.
So Kerry would have thought freeing the slaves was a good idea, but only if other people thought so too? This Kerry character sounds like a real couragous guy.
What you describe is a good example of argumentum ad populum. Remember the bandwagon fallacy?
I think people don't remember that the US is a member of the world, and no longer a Superpower.
How is the US not the only superpower? With the fall of the USSR we're it. The top, Numero uno. No other coutry has the might economicly militarily or politicaly that we do. None are even close.
We need to work with the world when it is in our interest to do so and againt the world when it is in our interest to do so.
"Kerry entered Yale University, where he continued to pursue his interest in politics. He was seen by classmates as a leader heading the debate team and serving as president of the Yale Political Union."
Let's see, Bush was cheerleading, snorting coke, drinking, and sucking at rugby, while Kerry was leading the debate team.
Oh, I cannot wait for this debate.
But of the two sides, they are clearly the ones who are more fighting on principle, with less to personally gain.
Yeah, cause I'd hate to lose my fetus-killing Fridays. Exactly what personal gain are you speaking of here?
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
You're repeating mythology.
The Founding Fathers believed in a litany of rights, property rights were just one aspect of it. Property rights are only absolute in possession. Your right to posses a gun and use it for your benefit does not give you the right to endanger my rights with it. You don't have an automatic right to act irresponsibly if doing so infringes on my rights. High rates of taxation have nothing to do with your property rights as long as you have representation. You can't confuse the two. Besides, the Dems propose progressive tax systems like Adam Smith did. Bush has started talking crap about a flat tax or a national sales tax, both of which would be regressive.
We have had communal rights, like water rights since the beginning of civilization. The increase in rights has coincided with urbanization, increase in complexity of society, increase in the education of societies members. I didn't care how much mercury you poured into the river till I found out it caused neurological problems. This idea expands to environmental regulations, labor law, organized labor, regulation of business, progressive tax codes and affirmative action.
The group of Founding Fathers that were libertarians were the Anti-Federalists. They were beaten desicively in the Federalist Papers. They lost, libertarianism died, get over it. The Democrats represents the best of the Federalists, while upholding the Anti-Federalist ideas of absolute protection of rights. I've found that most libertarians have a limited understanding of the American Revolution, have serious holes in their theories and cannot show it's ideological progression through Western Civilization.
As far as the 2nd Amendment, I agree with the Supreme Court, which treats it like the 1st. There is freedom of speech, but commercial speech may be regulated, you can't yell fire in a theatre and you can't violate valid obscentiy laws. I don't think guns should be as freely available as they are now. I have no desire to remove the ability of responsible owners and sportsmen to own and fire guns. People should not be allowed to arm themselves like private armies. Weapons of war should not be owned by citizens, personal weapons are perfectly fine though. I don't believe in an absolutist interpretation on either side of the fence. I think there's some fine tuning that needs to happen, but since you don't have the right of rebellion, so I don't see how you can claim absolutism with the 2nd.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Moderate? You can't be serious. Kerry is well known as the #1 liberal in the senate for the votes he was actually present for. Don't believe me, look up his record for yourself.
Can't we all just get along?
Protests are supposed to be peaceful for a reason.
[o]_O
This is actually a fair point. Many -- perhaps even most -- of those advocating abortion rights don't have anything to personally gain. But those who actually have or have had abortions certainly DO have something to gain -- that is, after all, why they have abortions in the first place.
In contrast, it's hard to see what abortion foes have to gain, especially since they are fighting for restrictions that would legally apply to them just as much as anyone.
So my point was in how these latter people get caricatured. The only sinister motive their opposition can think of to tar them with is "They want to control women's bodies," which sounds good at first but is cartoonishly ludicrous when you actually think about it. I mean, really, who actually thinks like that? If you're a woman, and you want to do anything you want to your own body, hey, knock yourself out. 99.99999999999999 percent of abortion opponents are against it not because they have any desire whatsoever to "control women's bodies," because because they oppose the deliberate killing of any innocent people. But the pro-abortion movement will never admit that obvious fact, because it makes their opponents sound like decent and compassionate people.
- Alaska Jack
AFAIK, hasn't USA been bankrupted since 1933? I'm not entirely sure about this fact, but if true, it would imply that the government would be insolvent and hence unable to service such a huge debt.
And since the Federal Reserve is privatly owned, how can the government ever be able to control the funds and rescue the national economy from an ever increasing debt?
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
LOL
What is funny is that in all the discussion groups, newsgroups, etc. I frequent the liberals, notice I did not say democrats, constantly blame bush for everything....even for their irregularity. They blame republicans for using Nazi tactics, censorship and hundreds of other things that they do not do. It sounds like the paranoid ramblings of the John Birch society of the 50' & 60's.
When Sandy Berger was caught with his hands in the cookie jar, so to speak, even liberal democrat came out and dodged any questions about it being right or wrong and blamed bush for anything that would get the reporters off the subject.
What is worse is they always talk of freedom of speech but then in the same post say that republicans should not be allowed to talk or use their free speech. They state that republicans are Nazis and should have to wear patches to indicate in public that they are, that no one should do business with republican owned business and that republican should be kicked out of America so it will be the land of the free. Some radicals even talk of killing all republicans. I guess these liberals are unsure of the meaning of the word Nazi.
Wake up democrats! The liberals are going to make sure Kerry loses in November. I guarantee that if the liberals remain in control of the party they will insure a Bush win. Take your party back from these people or Bush will be here another 4 years.
I can see you're a foreigner, but Kelly is a 'she', not a 'he'.
No he isn't. But he is a damn fine surfer.
Ha! I hope you ignorant Americans get Bush for another 4 years and he sinks your moronic country into the ground. So few of you understand how
plain stupid, greedy and easily led your people are.
Your lives are weapons of mass consumption and your 'American Dream'is a cancer which is killing the earth.
The majority of comments generated by this post are absolutely laughable. I'm just going to make some general and or blanket statements because I know no one here is going to take the time to apply any critical thinking skills.
#1, CrimeThinc IS AN ANARCHIST GROUP, or more correctly a collective. They have also divided the anarchist community a lot in recent history, for reasons unrelated to this post.
#2, Direct Action, as the old saying goes... gets the goods. Everyone who claims that taking direct action whether it be some hacktivist act or throwing tea in a harbor is counter-productive is probably not such a good historian.
#3, John Kerry is a lower form of humanity then Dubya' simply because I think he knows he reeks of death. Unlike the current king who honestly believes he is doing right.
./revolution
Oh? Is that what the hats are for? I thought that a was a new style out here so I put one on myself. :-)
Keeps the head cool in the sun but you get a real headache near low power lines.
Expect Freedom.
1)Dem with tech skills!
2)Hey man, let's, you know, put some acid in the reservoir. Yeh, they'll all be like high and seeing of truth and decide to become farmers. No dude, farmers are bad! The push alternative fuels that aren't cost effectve without massive goverment support and those guys work that way man. Guess you're right. They did it to reefer. Made a big police state machine in the name of a weed, just so they could manage the cash flow. Yeh, but think man. If we put acid in the reservoir, some of those republicans mistresses might get to feeling all free love and share some booty. You know the reps get all the hot chicks cause they have the cars, power, and money.
Another form of protesting the Republican National Convention: Joshua Kinberg's Bikes Against Bush, which allows you to type in a text message on his web site and have it spray-painted (well, spray-chalked) directly on the streets of New York via his wireless computerized pedal-powered spray-painting bicycle.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
When he's not such a blatent hypocrite, then he might get some of my time. Er, no he won't, because he's nothing more than just another famous person who thinks that by virute of that status he has some special gift and people should listen to him.
I'm sick of this shit. Just because someone is famous does not mean they should suddenly become drones and have no political life. I doubt you whine and complain when celebrities pitch products on TV for shit they don't even use themselves, but when they, like any American, speaks on something they passionately believe in as human beings and citizens of our country, you slam them.
Celebrities, atheletes, politicians, shoe salesmen, wall street traders, the homeless- WHOMEVER. They're all entitled to their opinion and have every reason and justifiecation to speak out.
He does have a special gift by the way, which is a sense of humor-- something lacking in many politicians (many of whom are coincidentally celebrities).
In short, far more so-called-politicians talk out of their asses then so-called-celebrities.
So you're saying you agree with restricting access to certain points of view?
The US is free to agree NOT to sign any agreements, just like Saddam. But he did agree to disarmament as a condition to ending the 1991 Gulf War. Any agreement which he has ALWAYS flaunted. The US refusing to sign on to the ICC or Kyoto is not relevant to the logic of War in Iraq. Countries that don't sign treaties/conventions aren't bound by them, that's why signing them is voluntary.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
But Grandparent is right, liberal ORIGINALLY did mean what he said. Of course the word has come to mean some different things. If anyone hijacked the word it was the socialists/quasi-socialists who came after them. It also has more general meanings outside of the political realm of course.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Does nuclear material count?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
That's not correct either. You might want to look at this http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm. The Debt is currently 7.3 Trillion, but over 3 Trillion is held by the government, money it owes itself in some fancy accounting trick. That debt could be vaporied and have no effect on future tax rates, since the obligations will be paid from the same source. The actual outstanding debt is 4.3 Trillion. This debt (government bonds mostly) is owned by private individuals, companies, and foreign governments. So some of that is "foreign" and some domestic.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
France might be if there was enough money in it. Besides, were the the parent ever call any of these countries supporters of terrorist?
I think you really just want to put the word good, dumb, and fuck into the same sentence.
What, in the Democratic platform, is more horrifying to a libertarian-leaning voter than a virulent, out-of-control theocracy whose agenda is basically governmental expansion, deficit spending, and packing the Supreme Court with evangelical freakshows?
People opposed to the second ammendment.
Anyone remember the The Iraq Liberation Act or the president that signed it
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
It's a shame that you choose not to distinguish sardonic wit (even if it is in bad taste) from insanity. You must take those words out of the context in which they were written to ascribe malice to them.
She also did not accuse "half the country" of treason, but made a very specific inference against journalists and polititians who took public and extreme liberal views or who exhibited actual traitorous behavior (like the harboring of known Soviet spies). That does not include the general voting public.
It's fine to disagree with her political viewpoint, but be reasonable about it, please. For example, I'm confident that Michael Moore is sane, and I also hold the opinion that he knowingly attempts to mislead. This is a kind of overkill on his part to achieve persuasion. So he may be wrong, but he's not mentally ill.
Returning to Anne Coulter, she may knowingly attempt to mislead to achieve persuasion (which she certainly did do in Treason) but she is not insane, nor entirely incorrect.
As for Treason being meanspirited, well, that's irony for you.
LIBERAL today means socialists, get it right
Protests: The Million Man March?
Protesters: Martin Luther King, Jr? Ghandi?
8-PP
I can't wait until Bush wins. All of you bedwetting liberals crying like little children for four more years will be great comedic fodder.
If you vote for Bush, you're voting for a neocon agenda. If you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a moderate liberal agenda.
If you vote for Bush, you're voting for a far-right agenda. I you vote for Kerry, you're voting for a centre-right agenda. The USA itself is deeply right wing. A real liberal, from outside the USA, would be derided as a godless Commie pinko in your country. Socialised medicine? Public accountability for government works? Strict controls over irresponsible private industry, to protect the public? Never! The Almighty Dollar must not be questioned!
While it is fashionable to claim to support free speech, only a tiny minority of people actually support free speech. Some people want campaign finance reform (esentially limiting how much people can donate to a party, so that only the two big parties can get enough money to advertize), some people want to ban advertizements against products they feel are bad (cigarettes, for example). Some people want to ban "hate speech". Left wing people and right wing people want to ban pornography, either because it "exploits women", or "is against the bible".
And now there are people on the left who are so angry about the Iraq War and The Patriot Act that they are willing to abandon the principle of free speech to win votes for... well... to win votes for someone else who wholeheartedly supported the Iraq War and Patriot Act.
When are people going to learn that it isn't some secret cabal of evil facists who are destroying free speech? It is people like your typical Slashdot reader who thinks they are enlightened and opened minded and support free speech, but who are willing to make exceptions for whatever speech they want to ban. YOU, the person reading this right now, more likely than not does not support freedom of speech.
"I'm a liberal because the Founding Fathers were liberals."
I'm not sure if you are aware of this but liberal and conservative and relative terms. For instance in Australia the people with Republican ideas are what they call liberals and the other way around. Well you are right...The founding father's were liberal...compared to England. But then again even liberals in the US would be considered conservative in Europe.Creative Demolition
Yes, because we all know that these kind of items are made custom, one at a time, like Hummel plates.
You know, each is unique, and comes with a certificate of authenticity.
So the fact that one of these was found means that no others can exist.
Sarin, of course, can only be made in tiny quantities, brewed by elves in small silver cauldrons.
After each tiny batch is made, the elf lore demands that the used cauldron be destroyed and thrown into the vent of an active volcano.
HTH. HAND.
Fortunately for the US, our debts are in $USD.
Argentina's debts were also in $USD.
Unfortunately, since Argentina's government does not control the supply of $USD, they do not have the ability to inflate their currency to reduce the actual weight of debt, should it become necessary.
In fact, for most countries the opposite is usually true: When a nation is in financial trouble, the uncertainty causes confidence in their currency (and thus its purchasing power) to decline, increasing the real debt from their internal perspective, because the debt is owed in outside currency and the exchange rate keeps dropping.
The moral of the story? Try to avoid loans in forms of currency other than the kind you use at home. This plan works for individuals, too!
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
"eah, i mean, they aren't even human right? So it won't matter... yeah, next republican you see, bash her/him over the head with a brick. They have it coming to them, subhumans that they are."
i'd probably bash a racist facist nazi's head in. i think it depends on the level of republican.
Hack the real enemy instead!
That paints a rather different picture, doesn't it? Based on these figures, the USA appears to be more overextended than Argentina, not less.
Well, if the rest of the world that owes us money would ever pay it back, perhaps it wouldn't look so glum. But of course those figures don't take into account the CHARITY the US passes around the world...no, of course not.
Hack the real enemy instead!
yawn.. that 'stat' is based on the past year alone and includes procedural votes, most of which kerry was not present for due to the campaign.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
CrimethInc is an organisation, of which the person who spoke at Defcon is likely a member. It's a collective of self-styled 'subversives' and 'revolutionaries' who mount publicity stunts like this in order to sell music through their record label.
Most left-wingers who are familiar with them (myself included) disown them as poseurs.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
take out dem anti-gun, UN pussy, liberal hippies!
-I'm a Republican but i do not represent the Republican party
"And so the Trekkies were executed in the mannor most befitting virgins - thrown into volcanoes" - Futurama
Didn't you read the article? People are trying to DoS their websites!
Oh sorry, I get the two groups confused.
As a Libertarian sitting on the sideline, I find it very amusing that democrats/liberals that always tout how 'tolerant' they are are always the ones that are so intollerant of their opponent's viewpoint.
Case in point, the idiot quoted in this article.
Well, when the Republicans are in power the Old Economy flourishes (oil, manufacturing, defense) and when the Democrats are in power the New Economy seems to do better. So there is some logic to this craziness.
----
The Procrastinating Monkey
no empire lasts forever
I dunno, China has done a pretty good job so far. Remember the textbook example of inductive reasoning use to be proving that "all swans are white."
...count as "openly supporting terrorism"?
Saddam was famous throughout the middle east (and much of the world) for paying a $25,000 bonus to each family of any Palestinian suicide bomber who carried out the act.
"Germany would certainly support a war against any country openly supporting terrorism"
-Oh Really? (Here I thought Shroeder was just trying to distract attention from chronic 14% unemployment and social services at the brink of bankruptcy. (Not that we don't have a few of those ourselves)
Fortunately Australia has a preferential voting system, so you can vote for the people you like, without giving the greater of two evils a better chance by not voting for the lesser of two evils.
Why not get the real ultimate power?
Writing 2 pages of blowhard bilge that STARTS with a total out-and-out mistatement of history.
The conclusion of the BUTLER report (that's so you can google it and actually read it this time, moron) was that the intelligence was NOT sexed up.
Stop reading easily-discredited partisan hacks who were fired *for cause* like Andrew Gilligan (who really got spanked by the report you couldn't remember the name of) and get a clue. Then read the U.S. Senate Intelligence Report and the 9-11 commission which echoed the same conclusions.
Consider the veteran's group that recently ran those TV ads flat-out accuse Kerry of lying about his service in Nam.
Yes, please do consider this vet group, because one of their charges has been shown to be true.
The chain noise you hear is Kerry's people furiously trying to backpedal from his many blatant statements concerning this fact.
Fact: Kerry claimed several times to have been in cambodia on christmas delivering a CIA agent, even having a hat that he claimed was given to him.
Fact: The claim is complete, and utter, bullshit. Follow the link i sent you and search for 'christmas in cambodia' and kerry for more.
Much of the press is trying to stonewall it, but as you've seen, the dam is starting to crack.
Here's a short version of Kerry in Vietnam: He spent four months and a couple weeks in vietnam. In that time, he was awarded three purple hearts, for injuries that never cost him a day of service. Using a little-known rule, he applied for transfer out after the third purple heart, and was the only swift boat crewmember who did so the entire war.
Shortly after leaving the Navy, he starts accusing the soldiers & sailors in vietnam of all variety of war crimes in the Winter soldier 'investigation'
In 1979, he first claimed to have spent christmas of 1968 illegally in cambodia. This claim was repeated in 1986, and in 2003 even adds the now-infamous magic hat to the story. It was probably repeated a few times in between.
Now the Kerry campaign is claiming that this memory that was 'seared, seared in me' (Kerry) was mistaken, and he was near cambodia.
Nothing of Kerry's statements about being in or near Cambodia have made any sense from a geographical, tactical, or eye witness point of view. He even screws up the timeline with regards to president Nixon making statements about our people in Cambodia before Nixon was even president.
The entire tale he's always been telling about Cambodia has always been weird, and a little too reminiscent of Apocolypse Now. Perhaps Kerry's seared memory came from watching the movie too many times.
One of the swiftvet's charges is provably true. This makes the others worth at least a serious review.
And, and to the responders who have said GOP groups have been funding the ad- no shit, do you expect George Soros and moveon.org to pay for it?
What the swiftvets are doing could hardly be considered illegal, and unethical would be a faaaarr stretch. Kerry slandered them in the seventies. He's pretending to have their support now, and claims his pitiful four months in vietnam 30 years ago qualify him for president, while glossing over his decades in the senate. Kerry basically asked for this. Now he's got it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Despite their misguided actions int his instance, CrimethInc are the last people in the world who could ever be Republican supporters.
Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
"If you look a little closer, you will find that the law of the land is very much a facade in the US and that the ultimate demise of that country will result from the discontinuity between the stated ideals of the government, and the actual policies and practices of those who possess the power." The ultimate demise of a democracy happens when voters elect the politicians that promise the most from the public coffers.
Another related effect is that the government is competing with the private sector for lending dollars.
The money has to come from somewhere. Either it's simply being printed(driving up inflation) or loaned by lenders... which means it's being spent in Iraq instead of being invested in small businesses in America.
The SBLfB are at odds with people who actually served with Kerry, official US Navy records, their own past statements, and cold hard reality.
A systematic take-down of Swift Boat Liars. They don't even past the laugh test.
Meh, DOS would not be a bright thing -- two can play at that game. Of course, terrorism was never that bright to begin with.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Great. A political story comes on /., and I have no mod points available. It's a conspiracy!
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
That a post doesn't deviate from RNC talking points one bit lectures Democrats about groupthink.
I also find it funny that Democrates don't even know what Kerry stands for
I've seen this line about 4-5 times in this thread already. Repeating it over and over does not make it true.
"most of which kerry was not present for"
This seems pretty indicative of Mr. Kerry.
As "Insightful" as the parent post might be, it doesn't answer a few obvious questions:
Here are a few small-minded, sound-bite-friendly answers, planted deliberately to provoke small-minded, sound-bite-friendly hatred:
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
Listen you European creep, the only cancer going right now is the virulent kind that is affecting most of Europe, screwing up your economies, and keeping EU unemployment at up to TWICE the rate of America.
No surprise you pathetic frog eating losers, couldn't let Saddam go.
After all, how else were you going to create jobs if the easy jobs that you got from your up to $100 billion dollars contracts that you signed with Saddam the butcher of Baghdad just went away?
Of course you whiny Europeans couldn't give two hoots about the 300,000 innocent souls , murdered by Sthugs, whose mass graves have been discovered since Saddam was removed from power by heroic American forces!
You guys are beyond contempt!
It is the government that is barred from restricting free speech by the first amendment. Other people can restrict free speech all they want (as far as the law goes anyway).
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
why is this only happening during the RNC, and why wasn't the same thing promoted during the DNC? The Democrats have all the "right" answers and the Republicans don't? Why not shut down http://www.votenader.org/ at the same time, just to make sure everyone understands what the "right" answer is?
Aren't the folks running http://phil.ist-backup.DE/ are a little removed from the situation, and not likely to personally contribute to a viable alternative? Would they promote "voter registration" efforts? Do they honor the outcome of the elections in the U.S. or the election system itself? Should voters in the U.S. use such means to effect the outcome of elections in other countries?
Why is the U.S. stuck in a political dichotomy, 2 parties fighting over the two sides of a dollar bill? If the election winner doesn't have the "right" answer (a 50% chance, with 2 parties?) for every situation, what real difference is there between the choice? Are American voters just rooting for their favorite governmental sports team? Are Americans, voters and non, so blinded by the game that they can't see a 3rd or 4th reasonable alternative for anything?
Some things I just don't understand.
Plus ca change, plus c'est les memes choses.
Kerry treats the assets like his own, and spends them, so for the purposes of assessing the lifestyle at which he lives, they ought to be included. On his personal income, he doesn't even make enough money to pay the property taxes on the various homes that the couple own and live in.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
And Clinton's reason for imposing a regime change in Persia, the mass graves, was the "truth", despite the fact that they never did find mass graves.
That;s strange... I don't remember any regime change in Iran (which is what I assume you mean by Persia). I must have simply failed to remember the Ayatollahs being removed from power by the Clinton administration...
Oh yeah, it never happened.
hackers attack republican campaign
republican's track down and kill the hackers
world is outraged and republican party is disbanned, then the democrats.., soon there are no party's, only people, wanting to serve a duty to the country and work towards the countries best interest...ok, so it's a pipe dream...
Oh, the FBI should go after us? Pray tell what law are we breaking, you petulant fuck? Now we could get into a whole debate over free speech versus harassment, and your right to live free of "crapflooders," that kind of thing. But that's no fun, is it? Because really, I'd love to see you get thrown in jail for your blatant trademark infringement and perversion of the word "Microsoft." I have no doubt that you're a typical unkempt, fatass nerd, banging away in your parents' basement on your semen-encrusted keyboard. You know they'd eat your ass for breakfast in jail, right? Actually you'd probably be the one eating asses. Luckily I heard you're into that sort of thing.
Here is a very very short list of American charities that do work that impacts the world. I'm only listing a few to give you a few links. You can find a gazillion others.
http://www.pedaids.org/
http://www.cancerresearch.org/
http://www.children.org/home.asp?sid=98BD1FD2-E8B7 -42F2-B0A7-BC88E745D831
http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/home
http://www.afsc.org/
http://www.accion.org/default.asp
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php? content_id=49986
You can get a nice list of the top ranked (in terms of money raised being used wisely) charities online
According to American Association of Fundraising Counsel" Americans gave $241 Billion to charity in 2003.
That's only ~$1000 per person in the US, which probably does seem a bit niggardly to other countries who like to envision the United States Citizens as fat bloated and heartless. Look at it this way: The average income for a family of 4 in the US is $40k. Giving $4000 for that family is just down right cheap.
Certainly if you look at the charts you'll see that Americans did indeed give the Lions share on internal charity, because charity does in fact begin at home, but the amounts spent on international charities, plus the amounts spent for medical research that will eventually benefit the world are hardly insignificant. Donations to save the environment benefit everyone, as does charitable giving in many scientific and medical areas of research.
So, there are some of my figures. If I may turn the tables, you said :The hike in interest rates in the 1980s, caused indirectly by Star Wars expenditure, raised these repayment rates to crippling levels. Would you return the courtesy and post some documentation/facts/figures to back up that statement? I know that the "Star Wars defense was proposed in 1983, and that $60 Billion had been spent on Star Wars in the last 20 years. Yet, if Americans gave away 241 Billion in 1 year, I can't see how 60 billion over 20 years would have caused a hike in interest rates.
I also agree that debts can be crippling, which is why now there are policies established such as the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (run by USAID) call for forgiving foreign debt (at least in South and Cetral America) in return for children's welfare reform. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative also makes sure that countries are able to survive their debt. I would very much like to see Iraq be forgiven the debts that their Dictator amassed in their name, but it seems Iraq's creditors will have their pound of flesh.
You can bet that the bill will be footed from here, and we
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
...he's making too much sense.
Sorry My vote is for the guy with only one house. :P
Could you please provide at least three major media references that have made this assertion please?
It's unlikely that they're going to get enough legitimate users hitting reload on their own computers to create a DOS attack good enough to down the GOP sites. What's much more likely is that they're creating an army of zombie machines with broadband connections who will do the bulk of the attacking.
A DDOS using zombies... do you really have to think much before you figure out it's illegal?
In the Republicans' defense, they seem to be making more of an effort to accommodate their protesters than the Democrats did in Boston. There will be no concrete, chain link, and barbed wire enclosures. The GOP convention isn't going to be a free speech center but it isn't going to be as bad as Boston proved to be.
If 1 year in jail/ 5k fines is a felony, the interstate conspiracy to commit such felony would be a separate crime (conspiracy to commit a felony) that would have been committed even if the crime didn't even happen. In other words, steer clear unless you have a lawyer on call to determine your potential liability.
Unless the black hats are dumb enough to recruit internationally, that would be the FBI's shit list. Once you get past our national border, things get highly variable. You start to have to worry about extradition and what your national law code is as well as the law codes of the countries through which your DDOS traffic passes.
Yah, the Republicans have Limbaugh & Fox News. The Democrats are clearly outmatched, what with the support of CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, etc, etc, etc.
If the democrats can't win with that much media support, maybe the democrats should look at their message.
Just because Kerry is richer than Bush doesn't make Bush not rich, and riding to a significant extent on his family's coattails.
What bugs me is that Democrats tend to bring this out as something unique about Bush, when it's pretty much standard in politics. Take Ted Kennedy, where do you think he got his money or his start in politics from? Couldn't have anything to do with his last name, could it? What about Hillary Clinton? Al Gore? They're all from political families, and pretty well off.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
He's a pretty intelligent person, and surprisingly good at politics. Certainly not the world's smartest man, but he sure beats Streisand and Baldwin.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Shouting down your opponent and trying to prevent him or her from having venues to speak is opposing free speech. It's not an issue involving the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but it is an issue involving the fundamental right to freedom of speech: freedom from restriction by oppressive governments, and freedom from restriction by oppressive mobs.
This comes up pretty often on college campuses, where idiot "liberal" student groups try to shout down people they disagree with, because they're too busy smoking pot on daddy's paycheck to come up with a response besides a temper-tantrum style yelling.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Bush, by far - 57,218 to 26,911, outpaces Kerry in the $2,000+ donors category, and Kerry, again by a large margin - 35% of Kerry's donors compared to 28% of Bush's, outpaces Bush in the $200 or less category.
These statistics don't show anything at all about the relative donations by fat cats and average people. They show merely that the average Bush donor gives more. This could be because the average Bush donor is rich, as you seem to be implying, or it could be because the average Bush donor is more deeply committed to the campaign. To figure out which it is, you'd have to give breakdowns by "percentage of donors with annual incomes of $xx-$yy".
Remember, Utah donates more to charity than Connecticut, despite Connecticut being a lot richer.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The Democrats too, time and time again, give tax breaks / incentives / corporate welfare to the rich. Remember Senator Hollings, a Democrat, who sponsored a copyright extension to protect the monetary interests of the Disney corporation? He's just one of many.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The Republicans have consistently been the party of business since their inception. Originally it was northern business versus the southern agriculture that supported the Democrats, and now it's business wherever that business happens to be located. The Republicans have never been the party of unions and minimum wages: that's always been the Democrats. Surely you remember the corrupt union bosses forging votes to get Democrats into office?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've been to my share of rallies and speeches and political websites, but I've yet to find a large segment of the neo-left that places evidence and facts before ideology. It's all ideology and partisanship: if Bush does something, it's automatically decided it's wrong, and the justification comes afterwards. Nobody makes honest evaluations based on evidence and facts in that camp. Sure, Bush is usually wrong, but that doesn't mean that every single thing he does is automatically wrong, unless you're some sort of partisan warrior.
Possibly an exception to this is Noam Chomsky, who certainly isn't perfect, but at least has an unusual combination of views that aren't easy to pinhole into one particular ideology. Nader also on occasion seems thoughtful. But Kerry? Partisan idiot, possibly even more so than Bush (Kerry's almost on the level of Tom DeLay in partisan nastiness). Same goes with most neo-left groups, especially the sort that hold rallies.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
What's wrong with hugging trees? I just don't see why it has such negative connotations. Have you ever hugged a tree? The ones in the forest smell wonderful, and depending on the type, they smell like maple, cinnamon, butterscotch, or even cake! But you have to get really close to the bark to really experience it... in effect, you must hug them.
The Democratic bankroller, George Soros, is a multi-billionaire. He's the funder behind MoveOn.org and one of the world's wealthiest persons.
Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdock. Looks like the GOP has the Democrats beat 2-1 as far as billionare sponsors go. And Scaife has been at this for lot longer than Soros has.
Warren Buffet, multi-billionaire and depending on the list, the second richest man in the US (behind Bill Gates, who donates to both parties) is exclusively pro-Democrat.
And this proves....what? As someone else pointed out, Gates is a Republican.
Most of Hollywood's rich are Democrats and despise Republicans.
Most Hollywood owners, who have a lot more money than actors, are Republicans. But again, this does what to prove the price of rice in China?
Here's a clue to help you validate this fact: look at what geographic regions vote Republican (aka fly over country, or the "Red states" which the elitists aka Democrats point out are rural schmucks not worth their time). Ever wonder why elitists are almost always Democrats too? Ever wonder why the media elitists hate humble people (i.e. George Bush, Ronald Reagan) and make fun of them as idiots because they don't understand complexities (that's code for relativism)?
Riiight. No one said this more perfectly, and honestly than George Bush at a Fat Cat dinner: "some call you the elite...I call you my base". Who got most of the Bush tax cuts? The rich. Who was totally left out? Those who don't make enough money to pay income taxes, but do pay payroll taxes. Which were increased to pay for things like Medicare and Social Security. So much for "if you pay taxes, you get a tax cut", and the GOP being the party of the "common man".
Stick that in your cock and smoke it.
I'm sorry for asking this, but as a Brit I have no idea what GOP stands for.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
The KKK is a democratic organization. Google it.
Have you been in a coma since 1960? Try googling "southern strategy".
John Kerry has the MOST liberal voting record in the senate.
Bzzzt wrong! That is based on one year out of Kerry's entire Senate career, and during that time he voted with the rest of the Democrats almost all the time, and missed many votes. If you actually look at his entire record, he clocks in at #11 on the liberalness scale. As if being liberal were a bad thing in the first place.
democrat, you can't run for a big office unless you're pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism (essentially)
Oh, thats right, since so many pro-choice, pro-homosexual marraige, pro-socialism Republicans get elected all the time.
and you really believe that the dems are the moderates?
Of course they are, because they are so pussy whipped and terrified of being called that four letter word, "liberal". Why don't you check the GOP and see how far its moved to the right over the last 15 years...if the Earth was flat, they would have moved so far to the right as to fall off the face of the planet.
Why don't you go find a single provably false statment in Moore's movie.
I wont hold my breath waiting for you to find one.
OK, maybe I misrepresented my view slightly. Back in the early days of the IRA the Brits were shafting the Irish in NI and keeping them as second class citizens, they weren't allowed to do most jobs, they had no right to vote etc. and suprisingly they got a bit pissed off.
The IRA (and other organisations) was born to fight the British, they blew us (I'm British) up, we shot them (or they fell down stairs repeatedly in police stations) and the cycle of violence continued. In the late 80s, early 90s the British and Irish governments got their heads together and began negotiating and sorting out the root causes of the troubles. Now Irish catholics in NI have exactly the same rights as the Protestants and the drivers (or excuses) for the terrorist violence have gone. Hence the lack of any Irish terrorist attack since the Real IRA's.
Why not just return fire? I propose some "hactivism" against these jerkoffs. Luckily, you have to modify the script to make it work, so a lot of potential users won't understand what to do.
Now, if the Democrats (as a party) don't want to define themselves in terms of the rabid OMFGBUSHISEVIL crowd, they shouldn't have invited Moore to sit in the presidential box at the convention.
What a crock. One of the great modern political hypocracies in this country is how Republicans are free to be as full of partisanship and retoric as they want, but the moment a democrat shows some spit and vinigar is the moment they've gone too far. I haven't seen the GOP come up with a single provably false statement from F911, compared to the president and vice president who lie as a matter of course on the campaign trail. i.e., Cheney making claims of an Al Queda/Saddam link months after it had been debunked, or Bush claiming that Kerry called himself the anti-war candidate.
Imagine the shit-storm if the Republicans have Michael Savage sit in their presidential box at the RNC.
As if Savage and Moore were remotely comparible. And shit-storm, wtf are you talking about? Coozing up to people like Savage is a matter of course for the GOP. Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Rush Limbagh, the list goes on. And I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see some of those people "in their presidential box at the RNC".
If you're going to call someone a liar, it's helpful to provide an example of something he's said, along with some other evidence that contradicts that. Franken does that repeatedly in his book. You have not done that in your post. Advantage Franken.
I might also add that Franken's fame - at least here in the UK - is purely as a political author. I didn't know he was a comedian, but I did know he was (is?) a Fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. So I should say he's earnt the right to talk about politics because people choose to listen to him.
the anti-war folks can't like that he's a decorated veteran even considering his later protests.
I really hope i'm not the only one that found that statement to be very wrong. I am very opposed to the war, but i do have a lot of respect for our veterans, so long as they weren't lunatics that loved killing everything in sight. I blame LBJ for vietnam, not the poor grunt that was drafted to go fight there. Just because someone is anti war does NOT mean they have anything againt the individual soldiers, especially if the soldier himself is anti-war. Kerry was actually there and put his ass on the line, making him so much more respectable than the average protester that would have done anything to get out of going. Bush was never actually in a war, but has no problem sending our soldiers out to be killed. Kerry may has a deeper understanding of what war actually is.
"one nation under god" has no comma, it is one statement. Thats somthing that really ticks me off, no one actually knows how to correctly recite the pledge. It is meant more to display unity than a judeo/christian belief. I don't particularly like the inclusion of god at all in the official pledge of a secular goverment, but people really do misinterperet it.
someone wants to impact the upcoming election, they should go door to door convincing people locally to vote for
Doesn't work. People will agree with you to get you to go away. They won't be convinced but, in that small snippet of time, you will believe they are.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Bush and others in the administration made a hell of a lot of noise about WMD's, mobile WMD plants and all sorts of other stuff that turned out to be dubious at best, and at worst just totally wrong.
Did I say he never had WMD?
No I did not, mostly because it was the damn yanks that sold the stuff to him in the first place.
What I'm saying is that there was little to no evidence that he still had WMDs by the time Bush Jnr. thought about invading. The weapons inspectors had nothing, the intelligence agencies had some rather tenuous links that turned out to be very dubious.
You're essentially saying that if I step on your neck for a while, then punch you and let you go, you're better off that I punched you, because it was overall better than having your neck stepped on.
Sorry. The people who were against the sanctions (at least the ones I know) were always a tiny minority, whereas about half of folks were against the war. The people you saw who wanted the sanctions kept up were NOT the same who were asking for them to be lifted before. Both the sanctions and the war were the wrong answer for the problem. If sanctions worked, we'd have never had to go to war, and if war 'worked' Iraq wouldn't be a war-zone right now.
Saddam wasn't really the mass-murdering butcher we make him out to be. The guy was not morally right, by any standard, but the several incidents of mass-murder we blame him for were perpetrated under CIA support. Saddam even told our ambassador that he intended to invade Kuwait in '91 and our representative said "We have no intention of stepping into a middle-east turf-war."
And regardless of how many lives we 'saved' under your logic, it's still never right to invade a soverign territory unless you are attacked. As far as I know, Saddam didn't have troops standing-by to storm the beaches of Massachusetts.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments.
...
should read
His policies prevent these facilities from being used in new stem cell research, forcing them to use stem cells which cannot be used in human trials and cannot be used to fully complete many experiments.
Well, I am an American...just didn't know there was anyone named 'Kelly' running for the US presidency...I had assumed it was a typo of Kerry...and was just being a little funny.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Not that I care much...I love my job and I'm living pretty comfortably.
But thanks for the open minded response.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
$main::domain = "phil.ist-backup.de";
Enterprise for Americas Initiative and HIPC have only come into existance recently.
funny, you dont dispute my assertion that you used a deliberately misleading 'statistic'. that's very indicative of you.
This has been happening ever since Bush took office.
My oh my how short and selective our memory is. While I won't disagree that the Bush administration and its sponsors have been extremely supportive of "free speech ghettos", fencing in protesters is not a new practice, nor is it limited to the Repugnants. Ever since the '68 Democratic Convention (and revived with a vengeance after the '99 WTO protests in Seattle), political parties (including the Demagogues. see Boston), governments and other agencies of corporate hegemony have labored to keep protesters as far away and out of view as possible.
fuck you.
...rd_syringe, or whatever the fuck you call yourself these days.
Again what you fail to cite is that the UCLA/Stanford "study" was biased. This same study classified the ACLU as a right leaning organization. It obviously has an axe to grind, and its methods are truly laughable. This study is worthless, much like anything you post.
If you believe a report that says Fox News -- a station which endlessly proclaims the President to be Commander in Chief of the civilian population, equates supporting an administration's unnecessarily aggressive war goals with "supporting the troops", and brags about how much it supports the government -- is "pretty much at the true center of the political spectrum", then what the holy hell do you consider to be right-wing?
Sure, individual journalists lean liberal and have personal biases. That's why they go to journalism school to learn how to recognize and remove their bias from their work. They might have trouble identifying liberal-biased news organizations because the liberal media -- Mother Jones magazine, the Village Voice, the World Socialist Web Site, and so on -- has no traction in the US mainstream.
The UCLA report can be summed up in two words: Bad Methodology. It places the center at the center of a Congress controlled by the extreme elements of a single right-wing party, a unique point in history. The baseline, from the beginning, is going to be biased to the right. They see liberal bias in failure to cite the opinion of discredited lobbying groups like the Alexis de Toqueville Institute which are known to lie to support their financial benefactors, and far-outside-the-mainstream groups like the American Enterprise Institute which blames blacks for racism and calls for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act but is considered only slightly conservative by the study. They no more deserve to have their opinions cited in the media than the Revolutionary Communist Party and their various fronts. CBS, the "most liberally-biased" station in the UCLA report, is owned by military hardware supplier Westinghouse, and refused to run MoveOn.org's anti-Bush ad during the Super Bowl but recently ran an anti-Clinton ad during Clinton's appearance on 60 Minutes. No way in hell are they ultraliberal.
So much of the right-wing discourse these days is based on lies and exaggerations that God's truth becomes "liberal bias", and you have to tell lies supporting the right wing in order to be considered "centrist"! The truth is, the news is full of right-wing propaganda; and yes, that's a leftist site I'm linking to, but that's not where millions of people get their news from every evening, is it?
Oh, I've listened to speeches and read websites. Those tell me what he currently claims to stand for. That doesn't necessarily tell me anything about what he actually stands for in reality.
MORTAR COMBAT!
I'll be damned! You are very welcome, sir!
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
Excellent. That reply made my Monday :-)
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Go read up on the mujahadeen.
Pretty much everyone would change there views 180 degrees regardless of which party they support. Pot to kettle Pot to kettle you are black.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Bah. As the Aliens vs Predator trailer says: Whoever wins, we lose.
Do you listen to Ground Zero Talk Radio?
Clyde made a parody of the Alien vs Predator commercials, possibly sampling from them, as well as from Bush and Kerry, and had the exact same punchline.
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
> If one believes that Party X is wrong, wouldn't one wish for as many as possible to be able to view Party X's site and see the wrongness for themselves?
Sorry this is so late, and I am making no statement on any particular political party, but:
If a site is filled with lies & half-truths to get people on their "side," you certainly would not want a large number of people viewing it and being influenced by incorrect information.
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." Well, they don't know if you're a liar either.
It worked so well, maybe next time they'll convince the voter to throw out the government that supports free speech... then the ones that support women's sufferage... then the ones that are against islamic law...
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia