sorry, i don't think ideological purity regarding 'free speech' is really the point. this is an ad hoc gang who is taking on another gang's real world activities. Reformatting Anon's statement, then suggesting it is a quote (shame) would only be valid if "free speech" was the point of this announcement. but it wasn't. Disagree with their target and/or method if you want to be relevant.
i'm thinking they already gots the goods and has cleaned up behind themselves...they get to watch the fun as the WBC spend a lot of energy closing the barn door...then wait for the announcement telling anon to fuck themselves...then anon dumps their steaming pile on the internets...lulz!
i have mod points but i would mod it down, not up! (if i was one of those chicken-shits who use mod points to disagree (or agree)) i think MM's analysis of the group and the point of freedoms, with some out-of-the-ass statistical reference to "autocrats" to be simplistic, badly formed and inciteful, not in any way insightful.
If you were to actually ask a real Gazan or Palestinian it is possible to make peace with Israel -- they will tell you that the best Qu'ran will allow them to do is "hudna" -- i.e. long term cease-fire.
normally i'd see a sentence like that and toss it into the 'dumb racist blowhard' pile, but since 4 million souls are being brutalized at this exact moment, i have to say that beside being ignorant, racist, and ridiculous on its face, trotting out this canard to justify the rest of your post casually justifying the whole bloody criminal enterprise, is really over the top. congrats
1. people who dont care, dont care, wherever they are. and the rest are relevant to someone. this people who 'might be killed' is a red herring, covering for 'probably be indicted'. Nonetheless, i do believe the wikileaks org has committed itself to redacting with an excess of caution to protect the former for quite some time now.
2. that's me mouthing off...i meant that this (yet another) blowhard is all about squashing the meme of transparency. short answer, they're crooks
3."they" meaning the politicos with their knickers in a knot about wikileaks. they should be indicting people goddammit.
1. no names means the leaks are fairly useless to the public, who are the ones who need to know
2. this pathetic law he's pitching is about reinforcing the state of immunity from accountability for those very criminals (himself included)
3. they're all human rights violators, putting it politely
i suspect it is media hype, but all i have to go on is media hype. ergo whatever the media around here is hyping is generally opposite of the truth (it's bad, send help!)
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability
you trying to tell a law-maker what the law is? maybe they'll just pass another law making it lawful to enact retroactive law enforcement, bitch! it's not like the US public will say squat about it anyway as long as the cheap gas and Bacon double-cheesburgers keep rolling. and don't try that "i have rights constitution" bs, you must be a terrorist to talk like that. i've heard enough, guards, silently lock him away.
Oooh, listen to college-boy here will ya? i 'spose YOU have a better explanation for why life is increasingly, hopelessly, pointless and futile. indigence only one bad break away. Watching a systemic erosion of everything you thought sacred, we of proud American birth, riding the wave of Empire under the banner of a Christian God. I 'spose YOU think it ISN"T as simple as the GUMMIT giving all of our hard-earned money to Mexicans and Negroes and Foriners? I suppose you would rather twist some of your college-boy BS into telling me that "the logic of Capitalism expects increased productivity and downward pressure on wages and social services", and other more confusing words that i don't know. you Un-American Commie MONSTER!
(this parody brought to you with deep respect for the masses being manipulated, may Beck and his cronies be swallowed by a wave of awareness one day soon.)
i know, it smells so bad that it is almost a parody. my money's on it being a black box 'leak' operation, easy to disperse dis-info, easy to snag the leakers. it's gotten lots of free publicity for no particular reason, it'll probably be touted by the pundits as a 'good' leak operation for no good reasons-maybe bc it is more 'responsible', or just bc it is in opposition to that bad man Assange.
our poor little helpless elite, terrorized by accountability! just imagine their shock and horror. we can only thank gawd they have excellent health insurance.
What bothers me about this is that the government is run by people, and it's these people that won't do anything. It's as if they get a rise out of doing it OR they are content because it's someone else and not them.
this is a pretty darned concise observation of the _american_, not just the government people.
People were saying that her continual use of gun references might lead someone to think that using a gun is an appropriate way to respond to political differences. Her copywriters carefully crafted her (deeply blasphemous) response, calling such a complaint a "blood libel". This term was obviously used to change the subject, to create a strawman out of what is a perfectly reasonable complaint.
and i say 'her' arguement was "deeply blasphemous" overall because it hinged upon the claim that we are not all connected, that our words and deeds have no consequences and thus, this world is purely nihilistic. Just because some lunatic takes her words too far, doesnt change the fact that if leaders called for reasonable debate to settle political differences, that meme would gain power and diminish the legitimacy of violence.
Why the hell does an investment bank, who normally act as a "service provider" want to take a direct stake in a Social networking company ?
It's a match made in heaven. Goldman's specialty is fleecing sheep. Facebook has a lot of sheep and are always looking to improve their own fleecing techniques. Goldman could also be handy in handling those pesky 'regulators'
it should be pretty obvious to anyone that you can't have a democracy when the media is controlled by the person in power. yes, so obvious in fact that it seemed a mighty clever joke on my part. is it that hard to extend your thesis to an oligarchy? because the democracy you imagine is not happening here in the USA _any better_ than Venezuela, and the reason the so-called 'beacon of democracy' is nothing of the sort is very much due to the corporate monopoly on the media. cf Venezuela, allowing oligarchs to dominate the airwaves to promote the destruction of a wildly popular leader, simply so that they can restore their slave colony is not de facto anti-democratic, while the USA is right now dusting off discredited deeply anti-democratic claims of "sedition", or calling for an internet "kill switch" to control this last avenue for real democratic free speech, in response to a trivial threat to the republic (obviously it's not trivial from the POV of elite privilege, which tells you all you need to know about this unprecedented intl extralegal mobilization)
not to mention that even if a third party presidential candidate were to clear the gauntlet and actually win the popular vote, he/she would die in a small plane 'accident'. There is serious money at stake here and no populist is coming along to fuck that up, period. and furthermore, the USA is a de facto one-party system, it doesnt really matter which one occupies the white house, the difference boils down to rhetoric and fringe issues, policy about things that matter is identical.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, i don't think ideological purity regarding 'free speech' is really the point. this is an ad hoc gang who is taking on another gang's real world activities. Reformatting Anon's statement, then suggesting it is a quote (shame) would only be valid if "free speech" was the point of this announcement. but it wasn't. Disagree with their target and/or method if you want to be relevant.
i'm thinking they already gots the goods and has cleaned up behind themselves...they get to watch the fun as the WBC spend a lot of energy closing the barn door...then wait for the announcement telling anon to fuck themselves...then anon dumps their steaming pile on the internets...lulz!
i have mod points but i would mod it down, not up! (if i was one of those chicken-shits who use mod points to disagree (or agree)) i think MM's analysis of the group and the point of freedoms, with some out-of-the-ass statistical reference to "autocrats" to be simplistic, badly formed and inciteful, not in any way insightful.
If you were to actually ask a real Gazan or Palestinian it is possible to make peace with Israel -- they will tell you that the best Qu'ran will allow them to do is "hudna" -- i.e. long term cease-fire.
normally i'd see a sentence like that and toss it into the 'dumb racist blowhard' pile, but since 4 million souls are being brutalized at this exact moment, i have to say that beside being ignorant, racist, and ridiculous on its face, trotting out this canard to justify the rest of your post casually justifying the whole bloody criminal enterprise, is really over the top. congrats
Ever since her inception the neighbors tried to annihilate her.
seriously? trying that one here? get serious dude. if you really love her you better get real about this situation real soon.
you mean to say: "rejecting the social structure necessary to _purchase_ that technology".
that is to say, has rejected the terms of fealty from the West.
1. people who dont care, dont care, wherever they are. and the rest are relevant to someone. this people who 'might be killed' is a red herring, covering for 'probably be indicted'. Nonetheless, i do believe the wikileaks org has committed itself to redacting with an excess of caution to protect the former for quite some time now.
2. that's me mouthing off...i meant that this (yet another) blowhard is all about squashing the meme of transparency. short answer, they're crooks
3."they" meaning the politicos with their knickers in a knot about wikileaks. they should be indicting people goddammit.
1. no names means the leaks are fairly useless to the public, who are the ones who need to know
2. this pathetic law he's pitching is about reinforcing the state of immunity from accountability for those very criminals (himself included)
3. they're all human rights violators, putting it politely
i suspect it is media hype, but all i have to go on is media hype. ergo whatever the media around here is hyping is generally opposite of the truth (it's bad, send help!)
Neither this law, nor the original version of it, would have retroactive applicability
you trying to tell a law-maker what the law is? maybe they'll just pass another law making it lawful to enact retroactive law enforcement, bitch! it's not like the US public will say squat about it anyway as long as the cheap gas and Bacon double-cheesburgers keep rolling. and don't try that "i have rights constitution" bs, you must be a terrorist to talk like that. i've heard enough, guards, silently lock him away.
whomever modded this as 'troll' is doing it wrong. try using your words next time.
His argument makes no sense.
Oooh, listen to college-boy here will ya? i 'spose YOU have a better explanation for why life is increasingly, hopelessly, pointless and futile. indigence only one bad break away. Watching a systemic erosion of everything you thought sacred, we of proud American birth, riding the wave of Empire under the banner of a Christian God. I 'spose YOU think it ISN"T as simple as the GUMMIT giving all of our hard-earned money to Mexicans and Negroes and Foriners? I suppose you would rather twist some of your college-boy BS into telling me that "the logic of Capitalism expects increased productivity and downward pressure on wages and social services", and other more confusing words that i don't know. you Un-American Commie MONSTER!
(this parody brought to you with deep respect for the masses being manipulated, may Beck and his cronies be swallowed by a wave of awareness one day soon.)
maybe they need a little call from the Lieberman
i know, it smells so bad that it is almost a parody. my money's on it being a black box 'leak' operation, easy to disperse dis-info, easy to snag the leakers. it's gotten lots of free publicity for no particular reason, it'll probably be touted by the pundits as a 'good' leak operation for no good reasons-maybe bc it is more 'responsible', or just bc it is in opposition to that bad man Assange.
a terrorist organization
our poor little helpless elite, terrorized by accountability! just imagine their shock and horror. we can only thank gawd they have excellent health insurance.
the AT&T corporation was the reason i never got an iphone. clearly it's the customer's fault for signing with them.
"Obama all but ignored Mubarak's announcement, declaring that "an orderly transition must be meaningful, must be peaceful and must begin now.""
woah, three nuanced ideas in one sentence? slow down college boy!
What bothers me about this is that the government is run by people, and it's these people that won't do anything.
It's as if they get a rise out of doing it OR they are content because it's someone else and not them.
this is a pretty darned concise observation of the _american_, not just the government people.
People were saying that her continual use of gun references might lead someone to think that using a gun is an appropriate way to respond to political differences. Her copywriters carefully crafted her (deeply blasphemous) response, calling such a complaint a "blood libel". This term was obviously used to change the subject, to create a strawman out of what is a perfectly reasonable complaint.
and i say 'her' arguement was "deeply blasphemous" overall because it hinged upon the claim that we are not all connected, that our words and deeds have no consequences and thus, this world is purely nihilistic. Just because some lunatic takes her words too far, doesnt change the fact that if leaders called for reasonable debate to settle political differences, that meme would gain power and diminish the legitimacy of violence.
Why the hell does an investment bank, who normally act as a "service provider" want to take a direct stake in a Social networking company ?
It's a match made in heaven. Goldman's specialty is fleecing sheep. Facebook has a lot of sheep and are always looking to improve their own fleecing techniques. Goldman could also be handy in handling those pesky 'regulators'
"allowing oligarchs" should read "restricting oligarch's ability"
it should be pretty obvious to anyone that you can't have a democracy when the media is controlled by the person in power. yes, so obvious in fact that it seemed a mighty clever joke on my part. is it that hard to extend your thesis to an oligarchy? because the democracy you imagine is not happening here in the USA _any better_ than Venezuela, and the reason the so-called 'beacon of democracy' is nothing of the sort is very much due to the corporate monopoly on the media. cf Venezuela, allowing oligarchs to dominate the airwaves to promote the destruction of a wildly popular leader, simply so that they can restore their slave colony is not de facto anti-democratic, while the USA is right now dusting off discredited deeply anti-democratic claims of "sedition", or calling for an internet "kill switch" to control this last avenue for real democratic free speech, in response to a trivial threat to the republic (obviously it's not trivial from the POV of elite privilege, which tells you all you need to know about this unprecedented intl extralegal mobilization)
cite
It's not 'Obama' or 'Bush' or any other figurehead making policy. that's why they are still breathing.
The only reason there is a 2 party system is because only the hardcore partisans are the ones who reliably vote.
you're very wrong here. the impediments to a third party candidate are insurmountable.
Nader knows a thing or two about this: http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/273-Break-Down-Barriers-to-Minority-Parties.html=
not to mention that even if a third party presidential candidate were to clear the gauntlet and actually win the popular vote, he/she would die in a small plane 'accident'. There is serious money at stake here and no populist is coming along to fuck that up, period. and furthermore, the USA is a de facto one-party system, it doesnt really matter which one occupies the white house, the difference boils down to rhetoric and fringe issues, policy about things that matter is identical.