Slashdot Mirror


Senator Wants 'Terrorist' Label On Blogs

itwbennett writes "Terrorist suspect Jose Pimentel had a blog on Google-owned Blogger. And so it follows that Senator Joe Lieberman sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page taking him to task because 'Blogger's Content Policy does not expressly ban terrorist content.' Lieberman also pointed out that YouTube does ban terrorist content and added that 'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"

82 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So if we ban public content that indicates terrorism and force them to hide it better from the government, how would that be better at countering terrorism? At least if it's public everyone can see it and so can the government, which would enable them to do something about it, rather than being unprepared.

    1. Re:Yea... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      My understanding is that, by simultaneously encouraging potentially dangerous types to brush up on their secrecy skills, and by making a transparent mockery of Enlightenment Humanism's commitment to freedom of speech and expression, a censorship system clearly weakens both those interested in clandestine attacks on us, and those who argue that our civilization is immoral, corrupt, and decadent.

      I'm assuming that it all makes perfect sense, if you squint hard enough...

    2. Re:Yea... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Out of sight, out of mind?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Yea... by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lieberman has never amounted to anything more than a "flag politician" - one that flaps uselessly in whatever political winds are blowing for the day. The problem is that the unconstitutional committee seniority system in the Senate combined with the bacon he brings back to his campaign financiers (note, I didn't say voting constituents) means he'll never get replaced - you have to wait until he retires. The same is true of Pelosi, Frank, Boehner, and McConnell. They're all useless career politicians who care nothing about you, me, or anything other than their next election campaign. DOWN WITH THE CAREER POLITICIAN. SUPPORT CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    4. Re:Yea... by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Nope, that's not what the government wants. What they want is actually to not allow you to THINK at all, whether the terrorist is terrorist, or just some crazy guy, or god forbid it, some actually smart guy, raising valid and meaningful questions, which only fault is that they are somehow screwing their nice and little castle at beach, and golden parachute, and 100k pension plan, and......

  2. Hey, guess what! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've heard that the Content Policy of the United States Constitution also fails to expressly ban terrorist content...

    Those 'founding fathers' must have been a bunch of rag-heads or something.

    1. Re:Hey, guess what! by IICV · · Score: 5, Informative

      In fact, the official content policy of the United States expressly allows things that could be considered terroristic, or even things that advocate Islamist extremism.

    2. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

    3. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they have better understanding than you give them credit for...

    4. Re:Hey, guess what! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Informative

      American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

      I don't think American Revolutionaries fit the traditionally, pre-9/11-label-everything-as-terrorism definition of terrorism. AFAIK, the American Revolutionaries made no attempt to induce mortal fear (i.e., terror) into the general British population.

    5. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mel Gibson put the fear in those fuckers. I saw the documentary. They called him The Ghost.

    6. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen. Americans also spread propaganda in London and other cities to try to change public opinion (while I don't consider this terrorism, it falls under what we label as "terrorism" today).

    7. Re:Hey, guess what! by MagikSlinger · · Score: 5, Informative

      They also terrorized Loyalists, which is why most of them fled to Canada.

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    8. Re:Hey, guess what! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure they understand history well. But I guess they found out that they're in the boots of the Brits.

      Or was that in the boots of Louis XVI?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Hey, guess what! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

      If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    10. Re:Hey, guess what! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The official content policy of the US of A starts with "Congress shall make no law".

      It doesn't say "Corporations shall may no policy..."

    11. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 3

      Well of course not. The definition of terrorism is to instill fear in the general population. Bombing a British military supply depot would not be terrorism. But bombing public docks and scaring loyalists was most certainly meant to intimidate the public.

    12. Re:Hey, guess what! by zill · · Score: 2

      So if Congress disbanded all the law enforcement agencies in the country and incorporated Cops Inc, FBI LLC, and DHS Corp they can enact whatever "corporate policy" they want then?

    13. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 2

      Ben Franklin himself spread propaganda in London that today we'd consider terrorism. You'll need to read up on attacks aimed at citizens, particularly loyalists, to understand more of what I'm talking about.

    14. Re:Hey, guess what! by Jibekn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you think they want to privatize everything? Its not about money.

    15. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The WTC attack was to spread terror.

      Worked, didn't it? The american populace is scared shitless of terrorists, and it's trashed the economy in the process.

      I keep saying the terrorists won years and years ago, but somehow the general consensus would disagree.

    16. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military.

      Sounds more like good guerrilla warfare than terrorism to me. If the supply lines of your much larger enemy have a chokepoint (as it was during the Revolutionary War; the enemy depended on naval transport for everything) that's exactly what you want to target, mainly for the material and personnel effect (the latter assuming most of the people working in the shipyard accepting British transport were on the side of the enemy). Psychological effects at most are a tertiary bonus, if you were lucky...blowing up a dock in the Revolutionary War would be a really inefficient way to instill enough fear in the public of Great Britain to change public support of a war.

      Modern examples of the difference:
      Terrorism: Flying jetliners into buildings in a way sure to get good media coverage and keeping the threat of the possibility of it happening again ambiguous.
      Guerrilla tactics: Attacking supply lines of your enemy in Afghanistan, rather then wasting your personnel in a head-on attacks against a much stronger enemy.

      Guerrilla warfare != Terrorism

    17. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, now, you have to interpret that based on what the Founders really intended. And just as when they said "free exercise of religion" they clearly meant "you can believe anything you like as long as you believe in Jesus", when they said "no laws abridging the freedom of speech" they meant "you can say what you like as long as it doesn't threaten the government or entrenched corporate interests, oh, and this 'copyright' thing is really supposed to last forever so what you can say without being sued for infringing it will gradually shrink too".

      It's right there in the text. Just point your eyes between the lines and squint real hard.

    18. Re:Hey, guess what! by bentcd · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia has, among other things, this to say about the attack on the USS Cole:
      "President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Some critics have pointed out that, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism[32] (see: 22 USC para 2656f(d)(2))."

      So you are right in what you say, and political leaders tend to hate every single bit of that.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    19. Re:Hey, guess what! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

      If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      Maybe if you can just take out infrastructure without hurting or endangering anyone you have a point. As soon as you do either of these things though you stray so far away from acceptable behaviour that causing terror is a pretty good definition.

      By the way, I do also take this to the conclusion that police officers tear gassing peaceful protesters are also guilty of state sponsored and sanctioned terrorism. I would like to see them in the dock too, I would just give them a lesser sentence than someone who actually committed murder.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    20. Re:Hey, guess what! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      A politician lied, imagine that?

      That's the problem here. We allow terms to be used with such impugnity that they become pretty much meaningless. It's not limited to politics of course. Advertisers love to do the same thing to language.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Hey, guess what! by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those revolutionaries authored the basis of all of our laws.

      They aren't just figments of history. Their legacy remains quite intact even to this day. In some ways they serve as a cautionary example of where certain sorts of slippery slopes lead.

      That is why the whole revolution happened to begin with.

      People will only take so much before they tar and feather the tax man and parade him through the street.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    22. Re:Hey, guess what! by superwiz · · Score: 2

      He didn't ask for it to be banned. He asked for it to be labeled. Oh, and he didn't introduce a law. He asked Google to exercise its free speech in order to provide a public service.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    23. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      They could if they had the same parent company.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    24. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      Is it sad or scary that I didn't realize you were being sarcastic until the last line?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    25. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      Well honestly when a Senator asks for something, it's not "oh hey and would you mind doing this?", its "oh hey you should do this or else we'll force through a law forcing you to do it anyway".

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    26. Re:Hey, guess what! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      I'd have to agree with you.

      terrorism would have put fear 'out there' first, probably with some ultimatum. "convert all of the US to islam in the next 24 hours or we attack". THAT will terrorize the nation.

      but attacking, then saying 'this is because we hate you guys' not really terrorism. they didn't hold us in terror. they simply just hit us.

      does hitting an enemy qualify as terrorism?

      most of us know this term is over-used and hyperbole by now.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    27. Re:Hey, guess what! by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are many such "civilian" things that are considered valid military targets by the U.S.: telephone networks (when the enemy military has it's own comms networks, so destroying the civilian system does not affect them), civilian electricity infrastructure (electric plants, city substations etc.), civilian fuel supplies, factories that manufacture everything from baby milk powder to paint, the foreign embassy of a non-combatant nation (an "accident" - the only bombing in that war directed by the CIA. Hmm.), and even "unfriendly" media (actually Al Jazeera has been bombed several times, their Kabul offices were bombed, their Baghdad offices were bombed, their Basra offices were bombed, and the Basra Sheraton was bombed when the only guests were Al Jazeera journalists.) Precision guided bombs, hardly ever miss, right? And it was only 70 years ago when the Allies considered carpet bombing of the civilian population to be a valid military tactic (justified because civilians were obviously working in the factories making war items).

      Also there are plenty of people who consider police stations valid targets - the Israelis have hit police stations in Gaza and the West Bank, killing numerous policemen, the IRA used to target police stations, etc.

    28. Re:Hey, guess what! by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

      I grew up in Kingston Ontario, part of Canada that was largely settled by Loyalists. Even after 200 years the hatred for all things American by the general population was rather shocking.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  3. Yo Joe by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Honorable Senator Lieberman:

    May I interest you in an important Historical Document that, I might add, you were supposed to have read and understood when you were sworn into the Senate?

    Reading comprehension is important for everyone.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Yo Joe by xs650 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Senator from Israel doesn't recognize the US Constitution.

    2. Re:Yo Joe by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

    3. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

      Well, if that's the case ... then he's clearly a terrorist.

      Upholding and defending the principles of the US constitution is part of the job description, isn't it?

      So, if he's against the Constitution, he's against America, and therefore a terrorist. He should be publicly flogged, and then hanged until dead.

      Of course, I'm not seriously advocating violence towards him ... but I find it appalling that lawmakers have been stomping over enshrined rights to keep up this farce of Homeland Security ... hell, even the term dredges up images of Nazi's and their Fatherland.

    4. Re:Yo Joe by truthsearch · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Unfortunately there are no consequences for contradicting their sworn oath. At best they could be impeached by an ethics committee, but their coworkers wouldn't do that. They could be voted out of office but citizens are more concerned about the immediate threats to their pocket books and security. Plus anyone moral and intelligent enough to run against them doesn't want to deal with the BS.

    5. Re:Yo Joe by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Hey, hey, hey... that wasn't meant that way! Back when that paper was written, they didn't expect anything like the internet to happen where everyone and not just a select few could make their voices heard.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Yo Joe by The+Askylist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you need to torture the Senator for Tel Aviv East to find out who he's working for. I wonder if he'd have banned Ben Gurion's or Begin's blogs if they'd had such things when terrorism was used to found his favourite rogue state?

  4. Politicians by folderol · · Score: 2

    Whenever I think they can't get any more stupid, one of them goes and proves me wrong.

    1. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein

      This is actually not correct, as there is one thing that is worse and much more dangerous: Passing laws that have no support in the general population. You can NOT uphold laws against the will of your subjects. A law that has no support will be ignored at best. Subverted at worst.

      It's also not so much the bad law that's dangerous. What makes it so dangerous is that people start to question upholding the rest of the legal code as well. If I ignore this law, why not that one, too?

      Once you made someone a criminal, he's prone to ignore other laws because, hey, why bother whether I go to jail? For reference, see the 1930s and prohibition.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite the opposite, for the average person personal moral standards and conscience are the primary reasons to uphold or to break a law.

      Do you kill someone for fun or profit? I guess not. Why not? Because it's in the law that killing is wrong? If so, I question your morals, to be blunt. I don't kill people because I consider it wrong. That it's in the law is a coincidence, and I'm quite happy about it since it fits my moral codex, but that's not the primary reason why I don't go over to my neighbor, bash in his head and take his stereo (since, well, when he's dead it's not like he needs it anymore).

      Would you turn in someone who you know kills for fun or profit? Even a friend? Maybe so. Even if he's a friend, but killing someone is simply wrong. And I wouldn't consider someone my friend who goes about and kills people 'cause he doesn't like their looks.

      How about copying a movie or a song? Is it wrong? It's also in the law that it's not allowed, but how high is your inhibition to do it compared to murder? Same level? And if not, just because the punishment is lower? Ok, then how about nicking your old granny's purse? Same punishment (in my country) as for downloading a bunch of songs and movies. Same inhibition? Same level of "wrong"? It's the same punishment, and given that gramma is nearly blind, the chance of getting caught is also pretty much the same.

      Laws and morality have nothing to do with each other? Do you really think so?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Geez, it's already done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Illegal content isn't allowed on Blogger.com at present.

    Terrorism is illegal at present.

    Therefore nothing new to see here, just move along and stop wasting our time.

    Maybe Senators could focus on something important, like the economy and trillions in debt instead.

    1. Re:Geez, it's already done... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      "illegal content" is the issue.

      YouTube operates under "TV-Like" rules to proactively keep from being censored. Blogger is about speech. There is plenty of grey between an extreme opinion and illegal speech.

      If speech is illegal we have this process with the laws and courts.... Google will happily pull blogs ... With the proper warrants.

      Barring that process, shut up and track who posts subversive blogs... Hint: the bad guys aren't the ones running their mouths off publically. Those guys won't ever get on an airplane or near US customs.

    2. Re:Geez, it's already done... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Think before you speak! Do you REALLY want Lieberman to focus on something that's actually important?

      For god's sake, THINK before you say things like that!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. This Video Has Been Removed by cosm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"

    Well Mr. Lieberman, you're quite the one to talk about inconsistent standards. And I'm sure censorship is most definitely the best way to fight terrorism online. It always works, right? Right?

    US Government: Fighting the symptoms, and not the causes. To get one vote at a time.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      I went over to the Sargent, said, "Sargent, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug."

      He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  7. Lieberman is the terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who is trying to terrify us here? Why, Joe Lieberman and his ilk, of course. What is the biggest terrorist organization in the US? The Department of Homeland Security, who wastes no opportunity to further terrify the populace (terror alert! new scanners! we are at risk! etc.)

    1. Re:Lieberman is the terrorist by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      very true.

      I don't fly much anymore, but I'm far more terrified of my own government and its paid thugs (blue and other colors) than I am of ANY islamic scary-beard-guy.

      my chances of having a problem with mr scary-arab-beard-guy are nearly zero. my chances of having a problem with 'one of my own americans' is probably higher than 50% (pick a unit of time, probably will still hold true).

      face it, our own people terrorize us far more than foreigners do.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  8. Free speech and all that... by Macgyver7017 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suddenly we should ban certain content? How is google supposed to know what is protected speech and what is illegal? Why should they ban anything other than outright illegal content which they don't need policy to remove?

  9. Who decides who's a terrorist? by mozumder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Should google label anything from the US government as terroristic?

    These days, no one can really tell who's the good guys, with random bizarre wars and occupations so on.

    "These Palestinians looks like they have some pretty good land we Jews can take.. Let's take it with US government funding!"

  10. What about Christian extremism? by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or is this yet another case of "one law for us, another for anyone who doesn't agree with us or fit our agenda-du-jour"?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:What about Christian extremism? by spidercoz · · Score: 2

      Yeah, counter extremism with extremism, good fucking plan, jackass.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  11. Congress Shall Make No Law ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... but unfortunately that doesn't stop individual Sith Senators from trying to use their influence to curb free speech.

    Ironically, some of his speeches on Iran would probably have to be censored if he had his way. I guess YouTube already won't host his Beach Boys parody, BOMB-BOMB-BOMB BOMB-BOMB-IRAN.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Congress Shall Make No Law ... by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      I guess YouTube already won't host his Beach Boys parody, BOMB-BOMB-BOMB BOMB-BOMB-IRAN.

      Wasn't that John McCain?

  12. Goddammit Droopy... by spidercoz · · Score: 2

    Just shut the fuck up

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  13. Lieberman causes terror by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's guys like Lieberman that drag American into the whole Middle-east religious wars, due to his fundamentalist support for Israel.

    I propose that whenever Google reports search results pertaining to Lieberman, they're required to mark-up him as being a root-cause of America's terrorism problem.

  14. This is why we can't have nice government by zephvark · · Score: 2

    What we need here is a law that politicians can be arrested for egregious stupidity. Oh, it would be a bit chaotic for the first few days, having to replace 99.5% of them, but I'm thinking we could substitute with labrador retrievers without any noticeable drop in efficiency.

  15. how do you catch terrorists? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You track them.
    How do you track them?
    You lure them our into the open.
    How do you get them in the open?
    You lull them into a false sense of complacency.

    If you prevent this content, it still it exists, it just moves underground. The serious terrorists are already encrypting and doing steganography, its about catching casual idiots like this guy.

    So senator joe is no tactician. Allow this content, and monitor it for the lone yahoos. Basic strategy joe

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  16. Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tattoo "TERRORIST" across their foreheads too.

    That's a bit much, don't you think? Perhaps instead we should just make them wear some sort of symbol on their clothes. A nice yellow star, or a pink square, perhaps?

    Put neon lights on their homes.

    A nice big red cross on the door.

  17. testing our elected representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm starting to think that we need to make our elected representatives take the same test we force immigrants to take to become US citizens.

    1. Re:testing our elected representatives by hazah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This will only highlight the absurdity that is that test. I have yet to see any form of loyalty built up by making individuals feel inferior. The test itself is pointless. The ignorance displayed by those who are born here is staggering. On average, Immigrants that pass the test tend to display more knowledge about the nation and its history than those born into it. This is stupid as it diminishes opportunities for those who can contribute to the system, and increases opportunities for individuals who leach off of it. Just like "no child left behind". It's a great sound bite, until you comprehend the consequences.

  18. The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-State by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  19. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Funny

    More like the Three Stooges version of 1984.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  20. Only Muslims are terrorists? by Mononoke · · Score: 2

    Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.

    So their standards are not affecting your ability to counter violent Jewish, Christian, or other religious extremism online?

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  21. VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What exactly is it that you right-wingers think George Soros does, that inspires so much hatred? It's amusing that you Fox News disciples seem to think that just uttering the man's name means a lot to the rest of us. It doesn't. The only time I've seen any examples of what he's supposedly so bad for, was when Glenn Beck tried to claim that Soros helped the Nazi regime (when he was a child no less), which is utterly stupid, along with false. When you look at what he actually does, he is a pretty solid fighter of communism, and fascism in Europe

    2. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      It don't got Rothschilds or Warburgs, either - but you know, they the ones who really pwn3d the shit.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by ideonexus · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's funny is that even people on the Right can't tell you why they hate Soros so much. The man is a self-made billionaire who grew up in Hungary during the time of Nazi Germany, and is one of the most successful capitalists in the world. He is largely credited with being crucial to the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, where he pumped millions of dollars into supporting pro-democratic programs and independent media. On top of that he is an incredible philanthropist contributing millions of dollars to organizations all over the world in support of spreading democracy, egalitarianism, and toppling oppressive regimes.

      As far as I can tell, the reason they hate him is because he made getting George Bush out of office his top priority in 2003, arguing that America, as leader of the world, was taking the world off course with the War on Terror. He also supports death with dignity through assisted suicide and drug policy reform. The man is obviously a monster.

      Jon Stewart also had a fantastic takedown of right-wing conspiracy theories about Soros.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    4. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      Such as?

    5. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      So, you think George Soros is bankrolling the Occupy movement the way the Koch brothers bankrolled the Tea Party movement? I doubt it. But there are plenty of Fox reporters who would love to break that story so if he is I'm sure we'll hear about it.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    6. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      While all the people on that linked list are in some way "bad" - and maybe there's enough of them to be 1% (not likely) they're all just the paid pimps and front men for the very few that really run the show - they are the waiters at the club of the uber-rich - and some of them don't even know that, serving as useful idiots (like George Soros - or Barach Obama). Follow the money - the same family has been lending money to both sides in every war since Napoleon. DeBeers is owned by who? Do it and learn something.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    7. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I find the fact that some people like to hate on George Soros particularly telling. As you already pointed out, he is one of the most successful capitalists in the world, and spends a lot of his wealth on various causes, chief among them promoting self-determination, less government influence, and more independent media. Makes you wonder what people opposing him are in favor of ...

      Looking at the American political landscape, I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too? It appears to me that some of the more vocal Republicans actually support the opposite now: more government (to protect us against the terrorists), and more government meddling in your personal affairs (enforce Christian restrictions).

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  22. Who are the fools who voted for him? by 3seas · · Score: 2

    This is the same fool who thought Julian Assange should be tried for Treason and still claims to have no clue as to what the Occupy Wall Street protest is about. Andf for those who want to play a fool, Its about getting corporate out of government. So say something and expose your ignorance and while you are at it, tell us, did you vote for Joe?

    I suspect he was one of the people in congress that participated in insider trading and has himself committed treason against the united states numerous times, as it is an age old trick to claim of another what you yourself are guilty of, in effort to hide your own guilt.

    Clearly he persist with proving he is not qualified to be in Government unless that position is as a sanitation worker.

  23. Re:Guess the Party by spidercoz · · Score: 2

    No, he's not. He jumped ship years ago and has been hanging with the reds while claiming to be "independent" ever since. He's full of shit and so are you.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  24. In related news... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    ... Senator Deputy Dawg, I mean Joe Lieberman, sent a letter to ventriloquist Jeff Dunham about the puppet Achmed the Dead Terrorist who constantly threatens audience members with shouts of "Silence! I kill you!" Lieberman is concerned that comedy may be "adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online." The senator believes that Achmed's past appearance on Dunham's Very Special Christmas Special, where he sung a song called "Jingle Bombs," was morally unacceptable and contrary to the Christmas spirit.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  25. Re:Guess the Party by McNally · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lieberman is a Democrat. Just saying, if he was a Republican, all the trolls woulld be out about "OMG Republicans are teh evil."

    He once was a Democrat but the last time he ran for office he was defeated in his party's primaries by a candidate that Connecticut Democrats apparently felt better reflected the values of their party. Subsequently Lieberman ran, and was re-elected as, an independent.

  26. Career Politicians = Political Products by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since career politicians are bought and sold should we refer to them for what they truly are: Political Products.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  27. Obligitory terrorist content... by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

    BOO!

    Were you terrified?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  28. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

    It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".

    And spoken like Droopy Dog.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.