Looks like Anonymous has hacked into the SCOTUS website - pissed about Swartz

[Jumping John]

http://www.ussc.gov/

Looks like Anonymous is pissed about how the USDOJ ran over Aaron Swartz.

If it's fixed by the time you read this, here's the youtube video posted before the text:

Citizens of the world,

Anonymous has observed for some time now the trajectory of justice in the United States with growing concern. We have marked the departure of this system from the noble ideals in which it was born and enshrined. We have seen the erosion of due process, the dilution of constitutional rights, the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors. We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.

We have been watching, and waiting.

Two weeks ago today, a line was crossed. Two weeks ago today, Aaron Swartz was killed. Killed because he faced an impossible choice. Killed because he was forced into playing a game he could not win -- a twisted and distorted perversion of justice -- a game where the only winning move was not to play.

Anonymous immediately convened an emergency council to discuss our response to this tragedy. After much heavy-hearted discussion, the decision was upheld to engage the United States Department of Justice and its associated executive branches in a game of a similar nature, a game in which the only winning move is not to play.

Last year the Federal Bureau of Investigation revelled in porcine glee at its successful infiltration of certain elements of Anonymous. This infiltration was achieved through the use of the *same tactics which lead to Aaron Swartz' death. It would not have been possible were it not for the power of federal prosecutors to thoroughly destroy the lives of any hacktivists they apprehend through the very real threat of highly disproportionate sentencing.

As a result of the FBI's infiltration and entrapment tactics, several more of our brethren now face similar disproportionate persecution, the balance of their lives hanging on the severely skewed scales of a broken justice system.

We have felt within our hearts a burning rage in reaction to these events, but we have not allowed ourselves to be drawn into a foolish and premature response. We have bidden our time, operating in the shadows, adapting our tactics and honing our abilities. We have allowed the FBI and its masters in government -- both the puppet and the shadow government that controls it -- to believe they had struck a crippling blow to our infrastructure, that they had demoralized us, paralyzed us with paranoia and fear. We have held our tongue and waited.

With Aaron's death we can wait no longer. The time has come to show the United States Department of Justice and its affiliates the true meaning of infiltration. The time has come to give this system a taste of its own medicine. The time has come for them to feel the helplessness and fear that comes with being forced into a game where the odds are stacked against them.

This website was chosen due to the symbolic nature of its purpose -- the federal sentencing guidelines which enable prosecutors to cheat citizens of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial, by a jury of their peers -- the federal sentencing guidelines which are in clear violation of the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments. This website was also chosen due to the nature of its visitors. It is far from the only government asset we control, and we have exercised such control for quite some time...

There has been a lot of fuss recently in the technological media regarding such operations as Red October, the widespread use of vulnerable browsers and the availability of zero-day exploits for these browsers and their plugins. None of this comes of course as any surprise to us, but it is perhaps good that those within the information security industry are making the extent of these threats more widely understood.

Still there is nothing quite as educational as a well-conducted demonstration...

Through this websites and various others that will remain unnamed, we have been conducting our own infiltration. We did not restrict ourselves like the FBI to one high-profile compromise. We are far more ambitious, and far more capable. Over the last two weeks we have wound down this operation, removed all traces of leakware from the compromised systems, and taken down the injection apparatus used to detect and exploit vulnerable machines.

We have enough fissile material for multiple warheads. Today we are launching the first of these. Operation Last Resort has begun...

Warhead - U S - D O J - L E A - 2013 . A E E 256 is primed and armed. It has been quietly distributed to numerous mirrors over the last few days and is available for download from this website now. We encourage all Anonymous to syndicate this file as widely as possible.

The contents are various and we won't ruin the speculation by revealing them. Suffice it to say, everyone has secrets, and some things are not meant to be public. At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file. Any media outlets wishing to be eligible for this program must include within their reporting a means of secure communications.

We have not taken this action lightly, nor without consideration of the possible consequences. Should we be forced to reveal the trigger-key to this warhead, we understand that there will be collateral damage. We appreciate that many who work within the justice system believe in those principles that it has lost, corrupted, or abandoned, that they do not bear the full responsibility for the damages caused by their occupation.

It is our hope that this warhead need never be detonated.

However, in order for there to be a peaceful resolution to this crisis, certain things need to happen. There must be reform of outdated and poorly-envisioned legislation, written to be so broadly applied as to make a felony crime out of violation of terms of service, creating in effect vast swathes of crimes, and allowing for selective punishment. There must be reform of mandatory minimum sentencing. There must be a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused, and consideration of motive and mens rea. The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds. Laws must be upheld unselectively, and not used as a weapon of government to make examples of those it deems threatening to its power.

For good reason the statue of lady justice is blindfolded. No more should her innocence be besmirked, her scales tipped, nor her swordhand guided. Furthermore there must be a solemn commitment to freedom of the internet, this last great common space of humanity, and to the common ownership of information to further the common good.

We make this statement do not expect to be negotiated with; we do not desire to be negotiated with. We understand that due to the actions we take we exclude ourselves from the system within which solutions are found. There are others who serve that purpose, people far more respectable than us, people whose voices emerge from the light, and not the shadows. These voices are already making clear the reforms that have been necessary for some time, and are outright required now.

It is these people that the justice system, the government, and law enforcement must engage with. Their voices are already ringing strong with a chorus of determined resolution. We demand only that this chorus is not ignored. We demand the government does not make the mistake of hoping that time will dampen its ringing, that they can ride out this wave of determination, that business as usual can continue after a sufficient period of lip-service and back-patting.


Not this time. This time there will be change, or there will be chaos...

-Anonymous

Links to the encrypted data they stole:

http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Scalia.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Kennedy.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Thomas.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Ginsburg.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Breyer.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Roberts.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Alito.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Sotomayor.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Kagan.Warhead1

This looks interesting...

They also made the original website editable by anyone, follow the link at the end on the website. It's amusing to play with.

[graham4anything]

1. If this were Columbo, it would sound like a terroristic blackmail threat

anarchy and rightwing extremism is never the solution

[Jumping John]

2. So which wing is the extremism of the Patriot Act aligned with? n/t

[graham4anything]

5. 3000 people REAL PEOPLE died on 9-11. though conspriacy theorist loons think otherwise

conspiracy theorists have a warped view of life in the world

real people died on 9-11

and a few collateral from drones would have died in a man to man combat anyhow, along with 10,000 other people

meanwhile hacking is illegal and should be charged as terrorism and blackmail and all that.

V was a stupid rightwing anarchist extremism that should not be idolized

But then there are some very delusional people that thought Tim McCoward was a hero for killing innocent babies.

Of course, some people also thought the cops on Danzinger bridge were heroes too.
Or that Oliver the shredder was a hero. In fact, he ran for office.

go figure.

They should make the NRA a terror org. and anyone that finances them aiding and abetting terrorism, and go from there

BTW, the constitution gave the president the war powers act, and congress has reaffirmed that we are in a war on terror three times over.

And anarchists and terrorists are indeed illegal.

There is NO first amendment right to yell fire in a theatre to create chaos and anarchy

[RandiFan1290]

8. Has nothing to do with V for Vendetta

You watch too much TV. It's bad for your brain.

[Scootaloo]

16. "3,000 real people died on 9/11" and "hacking should be charged as terrorism"

There's just something about those two statements that keeps them from jiving together.

Also, V isn't idolized. I feel I've explained this to you before, but what the hell. There's a scene in the film where the citizens of Britain all receive a Guy Fawkes mask. They don them and are in effect empowered by the anonymity afforded. It's for that scene that Anonymous sometimes utilizes the same mask. it's not the design that matters so much as the anonymity granted.

[2pooped2pop]

30. real people are being sent to prison unjustly while

the rich avoid it. They plan to fill the privatized prisons with the poor and middle class. The laws already reflect that. Hell even traffic court is a court for two party's. The haves get a real lawyer and charges are automatically lessened or dropped. While the people least able to weather the charges get the full brunt of the law.

We all know the "lawyer" they give you for criminal court is nothing more than a translator of legalese. They meet you 10 minutes before they go in to "defend" you. They are a fucking joke.

The rich will keep on taking until the rest of us are too weak to even try to stand up to them.

I wish anonymous could transfer all of the money of the rich into one of those offshore accounts. That would equal the playing field a bit.

[graham4anything]

31. How about Bernie Madoff and Dennis Koslowski? Both are in jail. Mega rich people.

when you tear down the last rich person, who will you blame next?

First they came for the rich, and nobody cared because they were rich...

that is what was so good about the 3 Dark Knight movies.
Made that exact point.

[2pooped2pop]

33. both eh

Whew, we've been saved.

[graham4anything]

43. first they came for the rich, and nobody cared

there are not enough rich to take down, that next year, what are you planning to take down?

and besides, 99% of America who work for corporaitons are 9 to 5ers and 99% of people who have funds and stocks from their benefits, are helped when stocks go up

take all that away, and what do you have?
More unemployed and poor

but you can I guess have another glass of whine that way

first they came for the rich and nobody cared

this burn them down then having no idea what to do after is utter Kaos.

[2pooped2pop]

54. First they came for the rich?

What fucking alternate world have you been sliding to?

NO ONE COMES FOR THE RICH

but everyone should.

[graham4anything]

61. but going after the rich is delicious today, but you would be hungry tomorrow

there are NOT enough rich to sustain life forever once you get rid of the rich

who next? The upper middle class?
then the middle class?
then the lower middle class?

Once you devour a class, you no longer have that object to blame

the rich do NOT have enough liquid or any type of funds to sustain life on earth once you take that away.

It is a quick fix with no permanent solution

So "tear down the rich" is just a hollow nothing.

Just as silly would be to print a million dollars for the whole world, therefore everyone is equal.

but then how would things get done?

All it is are cheap soundbytes.

But I don't expect most on this thread to either get it, or alter their thinking.

Because it's easier to say "Robin Hood" (who was a fictional character too).
(and the people that own his TM probably are mega rich).

[2pooped2pop]

65. the rich are sitting on all of the money

If anyone went after the rich, I am sure that they would not come badk empty handed.

And there will always be someone to take their place. There is no danger in not having enough if the rich went to prison or hell.

[nineteen50]

73. When

you make peaceful change impossible you make violent change probable.

[littlemissmartypants]

84. Is there a middle class anymore? Are we still using that antiquated bell curve to define ourselves?

As for the rich... what is rich anyway?

Btw, graham4anything, I enjoy your posts. But I think you have me on ignore. Peace. lmsp

[annabanana]

111. At the very least, they would no longer be able

to hog and deplete all the world's resources.

[graham4anything]

137. what about next year?

when the mob goes and kills the monster (which in other words could be equated to a lynching) historically, what happens when the world is not perfect afterward?

who does the mob go after next?

BTW, Gorby tore down the walls and gave the USSR it's freedom

however, once he did, they tore Gorby down, and the people had no idea what to do next.

change was not immediate, therefore the people somewhat tore down what they had won to get immediate satisfaction

so what do they have now?

those that accepted it would take a long time
but there are those that wanted it all

Parts of the former USSR then, are now doing great
other parts are not

things don't instantly magically happen

(as for the American Revolution, it took the slaughtering of the vast majority of Native Americans, and the robbing of their property and land to get to the point of the so called revolution.

as they said in the 1960s
and its 1-2-3 what are we fighting for?

what are today's rebels w/o a cause fighting for?

and how will they achieve it?

They tore it down in 1968, and its taking 40 years to start building it back up
and people again are making the mistakes of 1968 and will take us then another 45 years after if they were to succede.

(i.e.-the right above means those that tossed LBJ in the river, should have looked at the big picture,and what doing so meant to the next 40 years.)
Damn the LBJ haters.

[tama]

136. Once you have devoured all classes

you have learned a lot, there are no more classes, no class war, and you enjoy your peace.

Have fun fighting you class war, fearing and loathing people, gaming your blame games. We all die, and when you die, what have you left of all your possessions, your abstract pyramids of power? You are just food for maggots, turn into dust that trees feed on, and life goes on.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

89. 6:30AM, I'm still in bed, and laughing out loud

First, they came for the rich...but last year's capital gains were lower than usual, so I didn't say anything...

[Walk away]

105. Amen! nt

[socialist_n_TN]

125. Ah, the poor, poor, put upon rich........

Why it's nothing but class warfare! It sounds like *gasp* MARXISM!

It seems to some folks that it's only class war when we begin to fight back.

[idwiyo]

161. This post is disgusting. Using Martin Niemöller statement in this context is beyond the pale.

[JackRiddler]

169. This is a comedy routine, right?

[2pooped2pop]

41. Dark Knight is totally right extreme

R u saying that you are far right extremist. You are a bagger? Holy shit. You are really falling for it. I bet you were devastated that they weren't going to make anymore of the dark knight series.

I shall call you Batman. Will that help?

[graham4anything]

47. Not applicable corrolation.Are you a fan of the NRA using their soundbytes?

are you saying you wouldn't have jumped at the chance to drop a drone on Hitler two days before he took the first of 20Million people he killed?
I myself, being Jewish, do not know of anyone personally who would not have wanted that to happen.

If there were 100 collateral plus Hitler, 20 million lives would have been saved, as the 100 plus Hitler most assuredly died in the war anyhow.

Would you say otherwise?

If only there were drones back then
or one day prior to James Earl Ray or Oswald or SS or the asshole who got lennon, and they were dropped well out of range of any other collateral on those people, and yes, I would have welcomed the listening in on those people to stop them from the harm they did.

But one can't go back in time, and shouldn't.

One can only go forward.

absolutists are just as bad as extremists and anarchists
each situation warrants its own look
and not as one

[2pooped2pop]

50. not sure what sound bites of the NRA u speak of.

But to be fair, I usually can't make it through your whole post. Talk about drone.

[graham4anything]

55. I am still waiting to know what point black is, besides the def. I said,but it must be a gotcha

[2pooped2pop]

58. ur losing me batman.

Point Black? What the hell are you talking about. Did the joker give you some tea of any kind?

[RandiFan1290]

72. Do your own research into Choice Point and the 2000 election

I will not help you hijack this thread anymore

[idwiyo]

160. Bernie is in jail because he was robbing his rich friends, Koslowski paid bribes.

[socialist_n_TN]

166. Yep. That's the difference. These guys (or Madoff at least)......

defrauded the rich. THAT'S why he's in jail. Not because of the fraud, but because of WHO he defrauded.

Welcome to DU BTW.

[idwiyo]

167. graham4anything is playing a game, lets see how long before he crosses the line.

IMNSHO he crossed the line when he used Martin Niemöller statement in reference to the 1%.

PS Thank you for your welcome

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

176. No, you have it backwards. First the one percent came for the poor. Then they came for

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:03 AM - Edit history (1)

the middle class, then they came for our children's future. They high jacked our homes, our jobs, our pride, our lives, And if that weren't enough, they then demanded even more bailouts that will be paid for by the sweat of our children. You're ok with this. A lot of folks aren't. You can steal from me and maybe get away with it, but when you start stealing from my childrens future, you've crossed the line. It's our job as parents to protect them, and it's about time we start doing it.

[Th1onein]

177. The poor are part of the 99%.

Did they come for themselves?

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

179. OMG thank you! It was meant to say the one percent. I fixed it.

[tomp]

68. no...

...people who think conspiracy theorists have a warped view of the world have a warped view of the world.

[Gore1FL]

77. Question:

I am not following your logic. Do I have a warped view of the world for thinking Orly Taitz has a warped view of the world?

She is a conspiracy theorist, and she does have a warped view of the world. Through what process does observing this woman's opposition to reality cause my own warping?

[tomp]

184. very late response, but for the record.

I don't i know who orly taitz is but it doesn't matter.

the fact that you label anyone as a "conspiracy theorist" indicates a biased (i.e., warped) view of the world. that you think you can label a person as a person as a conspiracy theorist as your initial premise and win an argument based on that indicates an illogical mind at work.

the term conspiracy theorist has come to mean "loony" or "paranoid" and is often paired with "tin foil hat". this amounts to a blanket dismissal of people who distrust the official stories of world powers and of the u.s. gov't in particular. by definition, if you trust the u.s. gov't version of the facts you have a warped view of the world, because there are hundreds of examples of the u.s. gov't lying to us or keeping secrets from us on crucial questions.

many people, yourself included apparently, are skeptical of skeptics. 9/11 is the classic example: google "9/11 unanswered questions." pick any website and answer the multitude of legitimate unanswered questions. after you do that you can resume calling people conspiracy theorists. the skeptics have it right, you have it wrong.

[Gore1FL]

185. Orly Taittz is the crazed birther lady

Reality, data, and facts to not sway her.

It is different to ask question than to provide made-up answers. One can ask "Why did WTC 7 fall in the way it did?" One may also proclaim, "I don't know why WTC 7 fell in the way it did, so therefore it is an inside government coverup."

Conspiracy theorists do the second. They often dismiss new data to protect the theory.

It is one thing to be inquisitive. It is another to fill in the gaps with untenable speculation and then defend it.

This is the right way:

[tomp]

186. look, i work in psychiatry.

you don't have to convince me that there are people out there who will believe or say anything and create conspiracies out of whole cloth.

but to use your own example, why has the gov't not answered the question? why were they so ready to close the books on that and so many other legitimate unanswered questions about such an earth-shaking incident? and why are so many people so dismissive of the people who have questioned the official story? and why are so many people, such as yourself, I believe, so willing to easily throw around the term "conspiracy theorist" as a general epithet, even though it clearly conflates crazy people with people with serious questions and doubts about the "official stories?" orly taitz is apparently a conspiracy nut, which is different from a conspiracy theorist or just a person with serious questions. "conspiracy theorist" is a term that denigrates people with serious questions. i urge you to be more specific in your terminology.

[caseymoz]

87. 9/11 was a conspiracy. They just disagree on whose.

Do you think that a conspiracy that involves fifty guys (in the US and overseas) isn't a conspiracy? There are a conspiracies that are true and those that are false. The false ones spring from people's fears. If a conspiracy can encompass fifty people, it can encompass a lot more, and they have in history.

What anonymous says about the justice system having been subverted (and they don't say from a conspiracy, they attribute a confluence of wealthy interests) is true. And woe to you if you ever find yourself in a prosecutor's cross hairs. Try to keep up your "we have to work within the system" attitude if that happens. And if you read what Anonymous wrote about enforcing Terms of Service as though they were criminal, it can happen to you unexpectedly. When was the last time you read a TOS?

Your thinking is all over the place with all kinds of irrelevancies, non sequiturs and fictions. At least Anonymous thinks clearly, can write it coherently, and have covered any minimally relevant angle you mention. In other words, the know they're saying.

[graham4anything]

134. ah, no it doesn't make sense logically

conspiracy was what the professional people from Texas' Tom DeLay did to stop the recount in Florida(illegally crossing state lines to interfere with a national election, something the mischief makers of the Chicago 7 were arrested for).

It was a fact, because, the perps BRAGGED ABOUT DOING SO ON THEIR FUTURE RESUMES.
And they were person by person id'd as if they wree on the John Walsh criminal show.

So, if those conspirators gladly bragged about it, as did those that in the Watergate bungle,took Nixon down

What in God's name makes you think that the thousands of people that would have had to set 9-11 up remained quiet now for 12 years? That one person did not speak with SOLID proof?

Makes ZERO cents.

Hell, after OBL was brought down(and not by a drone, because then conspiracy theorists would have said, where is the body), but old fashioned methods of an arrest type action,
some of the TOP SECRET members spoke out.

So how in hell could thousands(even if only hundreds) have remained silent on 9-11 all those years?

Sure, its easy to get caught up in conspiracy theories, but it too is like a cult.
You believe the person throwing breadcrumbs, voila, you come to the conclusion THAT PERSON throwing the breadcrumbs want you to be.
UNTIL logic takes over and you realize you were had
BY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS for whatever angle it is they are selling.

[caseymoz]

141. I didn't argue that thousands of people did anything.

I don't subscribe to any theory about 9/11 except that al Qaeda did it. I was just pointing out that that's a conspiracy theory, too. An extremely well-supported one.

What I'm getting at is, you do subscribe to conspiracy theories, ones that are better supported.

And what anonymous points out is well-supported.

[graham4anything]

143. the 60s protesters that grew up, ran for office, or later saw that working from within is better

and most came to disavow violence as a way of enacting positive change in America.

(and we are talking about the USA here.
Other nations or people from elsewhere do not or are not able to or don't have the means for that. But in America they do.

Jerry Brown (DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE) defeating billionaire, and heavily financed Meg Whitman by working WITHIN his entire life.
Even though he came from political royalty and had means.
Soundbytes are meaningless when one thinks of Jerry Brown.
He doesn't whine, he probably is the 1%, but he has (without having to) given his entire life to public service to exact change and has done well in every single position he won.

corny as this is-
He didn't lose and slink away. He stayed to fight another day.FROM WITHIN the system.

[rhett o rick]

128. I agree. Yield to the tyranny, it will go so much easier. nm

[graham4anything]

11. It is the Ralph Nader wing of course. Because, fools like Nader said both parties were the same

and 10 million voters did not vote in 2000.

leading to 2 wars by the Bush's who Ralph Nader worked for either knowingly or stupidly unaware(same way Ron Paul tried to claim he was not a racist while racists were his entire fan base in the old days, those John Birch Society racists ones).

Because of Ralph Nader's extremism, and being heavily financed by the republican party,
anyone who ever contributed to his campaign, voted for him is 100% directly responsible for anything that happened from that day forward.

So, which wing? The 3rd party wing that loves to this day 3rdparty and Naderites, Paulites
and any other 3rd party that does not directly back the democratic party.

That is who anger should be for- Ralph Nader.

place the blame solely on his shoulders, it is his doing.

[RandiFan1290]

12. What about the Cristites?

They were allowed to campaign against the Democratic nominee for Senate on DU.
They split the vote and gave us Marco Rubio. How come you never talk about THAT 3rd party support??

[HiPointDem]

17. +1

[graham4anything]

18. A diversion from Presidential politics into local politics. But since you brought it up-

but then the teapartyrepubs sabatoged Charlie

Meeks should have told others to vote for Charlie, much like Nader should have.

Meeks was never picked to win, just picked because the Dems were not challenging Charlie.

I 100% support Charlie, who spit in Jeb Bush's face

As the SOP states here,
you back democratic canddiates, or those rare instances, where the democrat CANNOT AND WILLNOT win, back the one who can win and caucus with the democratic party

Charlie had said he would caucus with the democratic party and is now a democratic candidate in good standing.

But then Charlie was always liberal in social issues.

But of course, this is a diversion from Ralph Nader and Cornel West and other 3rd party Naderites and supporters of Presidential politics

You see, your logic on charlie is like those who drone on about drones killling collateral

Meeks would have lost one on one anyhow

Just like the collateral damage done by drones(the handful) would have died with 10,000 other people by their own countrymen in a man to man (or woman to woman) war.
So instead of 10 dying from a drone
10,000 others also would die PLUS the 10 collateral from a drone

In reality, 9,990 lives are saved as 10,000 others did not die.

Blame Ralph Nader. Because well, no, Bush and Gore would not have picked the court the same, and 9-11 wouldn't have happened had Al Gore been president.
And Al Gore wouldn't have been reading about ducks in a school building on 9-11 either.

[RandiFan1290]

20. Are you waiting for beer and travel money??

[graham4anything]

21. No, but those who back anarchists have their say, I will continue to speak against Nader & his cult

because there was NO theft in 2000

before Ralph Nader entered the race

though it is convientient to fudge the time line and forget that Nov came before Dec 12, 2000.

Without Ralph Nader, there was no 9-11
without Ralph Nader, there was no 2 wars
without ralph Nader, no patriot act

but anyhoo, the patriot act has nothing wrong with it
long as Ralph Nader doesn't throw another race(and became $$$mega rich 1%er in the process) to the republicans

Don't like Bush? Don't vote for Jeb

staying home or voting 3rd party for a non-democratic candidate sure worked well for Nader and his cult groupies of Naderites in 2000,(or put in Ron Paul groupies, or Ross Perot groupies) didn't it?

[RandiFan1290]

25. Choice Point came before Ralph

[graham4anything]

26. what is this word you are using?

[RandiFan1290]

27. You pretend to know so much about the 2000 election

and you don't know Choice Point?

[graham4anything]

28. Choice Point in my definition fits Ralph Nader to a T

I don't play gotcha games and obviously you don't have that defniition, so spit it out, what is your meaning?


I know choice point means something done, that has significant consequences later

(which would describe what Ralph Nader did in 2000, directly affecting consequences later on,
some of which were not transparent to the eye

It wasn't Nov so much as April,May,June,July, August,Sept.Oct.2000 and before

because Nader's lies about both parties kept voters home and not bothering.

Some might have come out and voted for him, but so many more just didn't bother

So, it seems that choice point or choicepoint directly IS Ralph Nader to a T.

As Ralph Nader was financed by republicans, therefore he either directly or indirectly threw the election same as any hanging chad might have. Only in mega numbers and nationwide,
not just a few.

[freedom fighter jh]

113. Choice Point was a company that created a list of "felons" who

were not allowed to vote. I'm going from memory, don't have time to verify this just now.

The list was full of names of people who were not in fact felons. They were turned away from the polls. Most of them were from areas where Democratic votes predominated, so most of them presumably would have voted for Gore. There were, I think, tens of thousands of them, more than enough to overcome the 500 some lead that Bush had in the count that was used in the end.

[graham4anything]

121. again, that was Florida. Gore would have won NH and other states without Florida mattering.

Nader caused voters to stay home and not vote in the millions nationwide

and directly in NH(where those 4 electoral votes would have given Gore 270 and Bush not 270

[freedom fighter jh]

122. Just trying to answer your question.

Not trying to jump into the argument about how Nader's running affected the election.

And yes, you're right, I forgot to specify that it was Florida whose vote was affected by the felons list.

[RandiFan1290]

123. Doesn't matter what you say

He will just change the subject when he is wrong.

[2pooped2pop]

44. +1000

ask him about batman. That he knows.

[2pooped2pop]

32. wow, just wow

You seem so uninformed for a person who thinks themselves one of the few who gets it. On every post here.

wow, just wow.

edited to add: Nader, Nader, Nader.

[Autumn]

106. It's like you have a math tutor telling you that 3+3=8. If they are wrong on the basic facts,

everything else they TRY to teach is wrong. Ducks!!!!

[Lordquinton]

150. Are you saying Anon. is an Anarchist group?

You obviously read the title, skimmed the post (admittedly like I have been doing to your posts in this thread) and came to your own conclusions. You missed the parts where they are doing all this to bring back the rule of law. I know of no anarchist group who's demands are "Fair rule of law" If you disagree with anything they are demanding, you should probably leave this site.

They even admit that their actions disqualify them from being able to work within the system, they are taking out an insurance plan so others can work within the system and stand a chance. They are making sure than when one of theirs gets caught for doing something they don't get sentences that makes serial killers feel like they got off light.

Anon is fighting corruption, fighting corporations, and fighting in the name of fairness, they aren't out to take down one target after another until all are gone, they are trying to set things right, bring back justice in our society, and they are playing a lot more cleanly than their opposition is.

[graham4anything]

151. Who asked them to? Was a vote taken? Was a poll taken? What do we do now?

Threats lead to dangerous things

and again, if you burn something down, you sure as hell gotta have a plan for what the next day will be it's replacement.

you can't just say it will be better.
because then 9 out of 10 times it will be worse for a long time after, til it gets better.

It took 100 years from Lincoln to LBJ
it took 50 years from LBJ to Obama

it was 38 years out of 50 where things went bad
and people expect perfection in a mere 4 years since THE REVOLUTION WAS PEACEFULLY WON IN 2008.

Remember the movie (as V is fiction, let's keep it on entertainment fiction-
The Candidate.

remember the last line?

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?


well, before I want something torn down, I want to know what comes the Day After.
Because well, survivalists are what drives the NRA and vigilantes and guns and the survival of the fittest Lord of the Flies scenerios.

I myself prefer Order to Chaos.
or is it Control over Kaos?

Did anyone in Nazi Germany when they massed to the man in the hidden mask(though Hitler wore no mask, he masked his intentions if he even knew at that first moment what his plan was)
Did anyone ask
WHAT DO WE DO NOW, prior to voting him in?

whereas
President Obama HAS A PLAN
Dr. King HAD AN ENDGOAL IN HIS PLAN

this is flailing in the wind, making threats, but having NO idea of how to accomplish it, and it turns ugly, violent, and making threats to me is akin to anarchy and/or terrorism.
Sending in a list of demands reeks of a B movie film noir scenerio.

and in real life, in past times we have seen what the REAL Tim McCowards did in Oklahoma City solely based on paranoia conspiracy THEORIES when Janet Reno gave them all the time in the world, til they went and killed federal agents
(which is a no-no in any book at any time. You just don't do that and expect good to come out of it, no matter what).
Logic led to my conclusions on that, and it took a number of years, as I never heard of groups stockpiling guns to use to overthrow a government in bad contexts before.

The 1960s were now 50 years ago.
Even most protesters at that time, the leaders still around have almost all renounced violence as a way to do things.
Same as protesters today demand NO TORTURE, well, violence is torture and making threats
IS VIOLENCE
and it is all connected

You do not use the two wrongs make it right.
NO, two wrongs are two wrongs.

and as that side so uses the constititon, well, voting is the way of change
running for office is the way to change by winning

copping out and saying here you do it, but we demand this anyhow
WELL, if you legally can run, pull off the mask and run

Get a majority of the votes.
If you present a good POSITIVE case anyone can win.(but I am talking lower office, you work your way up, like 99% of the workers in America, you start at the bottom, and work your way up. YOU DO NOT START AT THE TOP.
This is America after all.
That is how it works.

pull off the masks, and run for office, if you don't like the job the people who did just that are doing.

But don't make threats and burn it down, without telling anyone what will be there the day after? I guarantee you, it will NOT be better.
Not for the 99.9% of the world, let alone America.

[Lordquinton]

154. Threats lead to dangerous things

like the suicide of a brilliant man, which sparked this whole episode. They don't want to tear it down.

I'll repeat it for you: THEY. DON'T. WANT. TO. TEAR. IT. DOWN. They want to rebuild it to what it once was, to what we used to stand for, fairness, justice.

This isn't a movie, this is reality, where they are being threatened, and are responding the only way they have left, they took valuable information and said "You'll regret coming after us now."

Do you have any idea who they really are? if an example of them is Schwartz, then they are a whole bunch of brilliant folks who want to better the world and truly believe and act upon their ideals, instead of just rambling on and on on the internet like we are.

V was out for revenge, and he got it at any cost, Anon is out for justice, and they are trying to keep it civil, but they got pushed over the edge, they realized that their opponents aren't playing the same game, so they stopped playing along.

Did you even read the OP? they explained it in detail.

[graham4anything]

155. No, I disagree. They are doing this all to themselves. No one is after them.

He is a criminal.
Criminals can do good things, but when they commit a crime, that makes them a criminal.

Under your example, Zimmerman is a hero.
While I am sure you don't mean it, Zimmerman is Anonymous

he was left off

it was not til he was looked into by Feds and the media, was it obvious he is guilty perhaps of first degree murder

but of course, he uses those same lines
Had the media not played it, had the feds not come in, he would have been a free man and is/was a hero to the gun people(or was a hero).

NO Zimmerman is not a hero. He is a criminal.

Crimes were committed

A person who had serious problems BEFORE becoming sort of famous, still had serious problems after becoming sort of famous
Fame does not undo those problems

and correlating A into D doesn't work.
B and C have nothing to do with A and D.

You cannot say he would have NOT killed himself anyhow, if you get rid of all the stuff in between A and D, the outcome would still in statistical probability be the same.
B and C did not cause his death.
His own PROBLEMS before were the cause.

same as take everyting out of the Zimmerman case
Zimmerman stalked an unarmed man, was told to back off (and in the time he was told by police to back off, that alone proves he was not stalked in mortal danger of his life) and went in and killed to watch this person die. Murder. Cold Blooded murder, because in advance he disobeyed an order, and knew what he was going to do and did it.
It wasn't the media or the Feds, or the fact that blacks went to the media, and blacks are in the Justice department that made it murder.
It was the murder that made it murder


and hacking the gov't because WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I didn't get my way,
boy is that immature.
Sounds like a two year old having an argument by spilling his food
then whining that he is starving where is my meal?

you don't pamper adults.

You do the crime, you do the time.
And it was a few weeks NOT decades.

Zimmerman makes things so clear to see, when using Zim in other examples.

[Lordquinton]

156. Woah, come back to us!

Where did Zimmerman come from? a clear cut case of cold blooded murder does not at all come close to the whole Anon thing. (btw, Zimmerman will face a lower sentence than Schartz was facing, which is the whole point right now) Guess what, you ever read the TOS in any piece of software? violating it could land you in jail for a looong time, and they are real easy to violate, you probably don't even realize you have, so you yourself are probably a felon just waiting to be popped.

It's like Monsanto having a patent on types of corn, but the way nature works, they just have to plant some nearby your corn field, and in a season or two you are growing their corn and are now a criminal and have to face the music.

See what I did there? made a weird, unrelated analogy, except instead of talking about Batman and Nader, I showed another real world example of normal people getting their lives ruined for small things, a punishment that way outstrips the crime.

You are saying that any criminal is as bad as a murderer, that the kid who steals bubblegum should face a jail sentence same as a murderer.

Anon hasn't killed anyone, they haven't hurt anyone. They have helped more people than will ever know, and they don't care about it. They are the dark knight you keep going on about, they fight the fights, they get dirty so we can stay clean, they do horrable things so others can do good things.

[graham4anything]

157. No, I am saying he had many problems, and would have done the same thing, statistically speaking

his death had nothing to do with anything else but he had PRIOR emotional problems.

Not getting the help FOR THOSE PROBLEMS (and it appears he could afford it, and there was help available) let to his death

all the rest is immaterial to that point.

those other things DID NOT cause his death
His problems caused his death. Which, statistically speaking, most likely would have happened anyhow, as he did not attempt to control his own problems.

the rest is immaterial and hyperbole and in actuality, the anon. guy is using the dead person as a prop. Did anyone in that family ask him prior to do that?Or did they after the fact just accept it to keep the name in the news? But that too is immaterial.

however, a gun and a bullet caused Mr. Martin's death.
if Zim was packing a pingpong ball, Mr. Martin would still be here.
That is correct cause and effect

BTW, this you didn't do as I asked, so I am threatening you logic, comes directly from the batman show.
The Joker on the batman tv show didn't like it, so he did things to avenge it.

whereas the Joker in the Dark Knight was a sick person, evil, deadly, violent anarchistic.
not for jokes this joker.REAL and deadly.
The difference between the Dark Knight and the TV Batman.

[Lordquinton]

158. So you're an expert on Mr. Schwartz's mental state?

You know for sure that he would have done it had he not been hounded and threatened with 20+ years of jail time? this whole discussion is moot because you say so?

No, you are wrong. He may or may not have done it otherwise, but we will never know, because he did do it, and people do kill themselves when faced with unreasonable situations.

Has anon committed any violent crimes? have they hurt anybody? You are comparing them to a murderer, yet nothing they have done is even closely comparable to taking a human life.

Anon is Batman, You know Scarecrow in the third film? handing out death or exile sentences (which are the same thing in the end) thye are fighting against that. Aaron was facing such a choice, so he ended it before they could do it for him.

Zimmerman has a chance of getting away with what he did because of laws, Aaron had no way to get off, they had already convicted him before the trial started, they just decided to turn up the penalty to an unreasonable level because they can.

That is what Anon is fighting against, I think you'd be behind their ideology, Are you for the rule of law? fair trials and reasonable punishments? heabus corpus? Do you think the Gov should be allowed to imprison people with no trial?

What is this whole batman thing anyway, you really lost me on that, and I think you have it backward, because he works outside the law, like Anon does.

[graham4anything]

159. Batman works with Comm. Gordon, both in the tv version, the comic and the movies

the whole point of the third Dark Knight was that.

anon is the Joker played by Heath Ledger who also should have gone for help

btw, where were the friends and parents when someone cries out for help?

like someone I used to argue with once said in the only thing I ever agreed with him on
"all his friends said he was a loner and had nobody knew him and he had no friends"

suicide is a preventable disease

and all I know is what I read(though someone here just this morning told me to ignore him and not read him, if I took that person at his word, I wouldn't know what he said in the first place now would I?)

and I am noone. Nor would I impose my view on anyone. But I will give my opinion which is my view.

BTW, I like the cover of the new Time Magazine, I just saw it leaving the gym in the store next to it, picking up the Sunday paper

[raouldukelives]

183. Hey now, at least RT made sense to me sometimes. nt

[Autumn]

92. Not ducks, a pet goat. Al Gore won the election. A corrupt supreme court appointed

George Bush.

[graham4anything]

170. The court decision was 12/12/2000. Ralph Nader spent months earlier keeping people home

10 million voters stayed home thanks to Ralph Nader

one can't blame courts and admire Ralph Nader
Because a democratic candidate would not have gotten everybody to stay home and not bother because they were the same and would not have given us Clarence Thomas, and the others.

so the logic fails.

It was Ralph Nader after all.

[Autumn]

172. And when the votes were counted, enough people had gone out to vote

to elect Al Gore as President. Your logic fails. Enough people got out to vote to elect AL Gore as the winner of the 2000 Presidential election. Al Gore won the election. Repeat, enough people voted for Al Gore to win the election. To say everybody stayed home is bullshit or deliberately ignoring the truth. AL GORE WON THE ELECTION! Enough people go out to vote so that Al Gore won the election over Bush and Nader.

But continue ignoring that because then you can enjoy your irrational hatred of Ralph Nader. By the way, a corrupt supreme court awarded the election to George Bush. That doesn't seem to bother you at all. Did I mention, Al Gore got enough votes to actually win the election?

Your logic fails.


It was Al Gore who won after all.

Oh yeah, it was a pet goat bush was reading about, you were wrong on that also.

[graham4anything]

173. 12/12/2000 was just a reaction to the actions/consequences of Nader many months PRIOR

Except that Al Gore would have won NH in Nov, and Florida would have not mattered at all

the four electoral votes in NH changed the outcome

270 would have been reached with NH

long before 12/12/2000

but it is convieniant to give nader a pass and blame everything but him.
He is the direct cause.

Do you think 10 million voters voting, would have all voted for George Bush?
Bush got every vote from every voter.

People don't like the court?
Why did people elect Reagan, Bush41 and why did only 59% of the public NOT vote for Bill Clinton in 1992?

actions/consequence

why did people not demand LBJ ran in 1968 after he retired?
Why did they not demand he come back after Bobby died?
The 1968 election spoke volumes, but mostly only seen in retrospect.
Every wrong move that could be made, was made in 1968.

Then the same thing happened in 1980.

Then terrible candidates in 1984 and 1988(though like HHH, they were really great guys, down to earth, smart, etc.)

actions/consequences

Florida was only a reaction to the actions/consequences that happened prior to 12/12/2000.

BTW, even if the supreme court ruled the other way, there was NO assurance the people in Florida would have sent Gore electors. No assurance whatsoever.
And even at that point had Gore been seated, he would not have had the power to do anything at all, and would have been reading about ducks or goats in a school room and had been a one term president, because he would not have been considered legit

THANKS TO RALPH NADER.

And Nader would then have said Gore/Bush were alike.

Yes, it is Ralph Nader's fault.
Florida was a reaction to earlier action/consequences of what Ralph Nader did.

[Autumn]

174. Al Gore won the election regardless of anything leading up to the election.

A corrupt supreme court appointed Bush. Bush read about a pet goat on 9 11 not a duck , I chose not to read your long reply. IMO if a person is wrong on basic facts, anything else they have to say has a strong probability of being wrong also. Have a good day.

[graham4anything]

178. I am looking at my placemat of the presidents I got at the Lincoln memorial a number of years ago

and I am sorry, I do not see Al Gore's picture on it.

Winning means being seated.

Do you think politics became dirty in 2000?

Politics was always dirty.
But not that you want to hear it, never before have so many people NOT voted than in 2000.

And NH (though most would like to forget that) had the electoral votes that at 8pm eastern time in Nov.2000, would have put Gore over the top.
Except that it went to W, because of the mass amount of voters guess who got.

Ralph Nader.

and I will keep saying it.

[tomp]

70. anti-"conspiracy" AND anti-Nader = loser x 2.

c'mon, go for the trifecta.

[2pooped2pop]

29. the rich wing

to use against the rest of us.

[RandiFan1290]

4. Are you mad, brah?

[stultusporcos]

45. One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Freedom Fighter

[caseymoz]

88. If you read any of their statement

. . . you'd see that they're not anarchists and they're not right wing extremists. They also disqualified themselves from negotiating a solution. They said other parties have to do that, and they can't be part of it.

That makes your post 100 percent wrong. No surprise when you give Columbo as the your point of reference.

[Melinda]

124. Yeah, kind of like our First Continental Congress... damn those anarchists!!

Hear that Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, et al? Georgia had it right!! Georgia always has it right, right?

Oh, wait....

[socialist_n_TN]

126. "rightwing extremism" LOL.......

Yep. And up is down and we've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia. Yep that's more folks.

Any time we even BEGIN to fight back in the class war, we're inundated by Third Wayers and triangulators. And it seems the new meme is that a true left wing response is now "right wing extremism". It would be funny, if it weren't pathetic.

[Scuba]

3. Biggest surprise: Clarence Thomas has only sent one email since being confirmed as a justice ...

... and that one was a joke.

[George II]

81. not true...

....he didn't make any comments from the bench for seven years and broke that streak with a joke.

[newfie11]

6. Go Anonymous

At least someone is speaking out against the injustice in this country.

[graham4anything]

7. anarchists, rightwing extremists and 3rd parties have no place on a democratic board

[RandiFan1290]

10. I smell a Ralph coming!

[newfie11]

14. If not them, who?

Who is going to call out the injustice done by this country?

[2pooped2pop]

34. I think the only injustice he can see

is if a third party tried to run too. Otherwise everything is hunky dorie, working just like it's suppose to. What a ....

[littleswan]

60. Is that poster intentionally trying to be a parody?

And I'm just not in on the joke? I've see people yelling at the clouds down at the bus station before.

[tama]

49. Take your complaint to Meta

and see if Admin cares.

[Buzz Clik]

78. +1

[caseymoz]

90. Who then? Columbo?

You're really showing a tenuous connection to reality here.

[idwiyo]

162. First and 3rd are definitely welcome here as long as they follow the TOS for DU.

[graham4anything]

163. which means not tearing down the democratic party and whining police state

and fascist, and envoking a person wearing a rightwing extremist mask like V was
and thinking Eric Holder is evil and Janet Reno is evil and saying both parties are the same

the irony is amazing

[idwiyo]

165. I do think you need to step away from PC for a little bit. You are not making any sense.

[graham4anything]

9. BTW, if you want some fictional character to be admired, admire The Dark Knight not V

love that last movie, it was so drippingly current politically.

Great political movie.

though some stupid joker terrorist shot up a theatre, and made the entire nation lose its constitutional right to a peaceful assembly.

Too bad that movie wasn't given a Best movie nomination.

[newfie11]

15. No we as a country will sit on our butts and complain

At least Anonymous is focusing attention on problems with this country.

Will it help. I doubt it. As a country we are not what we were in the 60's. we are to lazy.

[graham4anything]

19. The way to change is to run for office FROM WITHIN. Not anarchy from the right

the members of OWS should all run for office if they don't like what is going on
500 or 5000 running somewhere

instead of tearing government down, work helping to do whatever

If only ten percent win of 500, that is 50 offices
10 % of 5000 is 500

[newfie11]

23. The cost of running for office makes it difficult

Who can compete against corporations buying politicians.

[graham4anything]

24. President Obama did. Jerry Brown did.besides, there are ways if one is anti-gun

OWS should run as anti-gun, anti-NRA and then accept any all help from Mike Bloomberg who is financing mega funds to any candidate who is against the NRA.

instant funding to win

Ask the guy in California, now retired, long time democratic candidate who was pro-NRA, primaried out by an anti-NRA candidate

Meg Whitman had billions
Jerry Brown zero funds
Jerry creamed her but good
and almost won years ago with just a 1-800.

But don't like corporations being people? Well, guess what, that too is Ralph Nader's fault
As Al Gore wouldn't have put Alito and Roberts on the court, now would he?
And that law wouldn't have happened in the first place.

money is not bad
bad people with money are bad
good people with money are good
people of anytype using money for good is good

and I don't know of many people who will give up their money
(though Mike Bloomberg and a few others have vowed to give it all away before they pass.)
Those are good money people.

ows could get over their perceived hatred and run to win with necesary funding

[2pooped2pop]

36. oh, you are one of those guys that works for an official

and is anti anything Occupy. Oh yeah, the only way to run this country is by votes. Right? What a fucking joke. I have never ever put anyone on ignore, but since you are on here even trying to dictate who else should be allowed to post here, I am strongly considering it. Though I am not certain as you do provide a sort of comic relief.

No, I'm going to keep you. I need laughs sometimes.
Gnome saying?

[Chef Eric]

40. You say running for office is "the way" to bring change?

Did Frederick Douglass run for office? No.
Did Harriet Beecher Stowe run for office? No.
Did Martin Luther King run for office? No.

They all brought enormous change, and we're a much better country for it.

But hey, thank you for the fourth grade math exercise. It's very useful.

[graham4anything]

51. Dr. King might have been VP with Jimmy Carter and President thereafter

He could have run. Therebut for an extremist who shot him dead he could not.

BTW, thanks to thomas "slave owner" Jefferson, Douglass and Stowe could NOT run for office, but thanks to Lincoln running for office, they did.

What if Lincoln did not run?

that is why there is a progression and it moves things forward

Lincoln-FDR-LBJ-Obama
without any of them there would be nothing.

[Chef Eric]

85. Your posts are ridiculous.

I provide examples of people who brought about change without running for office, and your response is to change the subject.

Of course Douglass and Stowe weren't able to run. But they managed to bring about change anyway.

Of course MLK "could have" run. But he didn't, and he brought about change anyway.

The point is that these people proved that running for office is not the only way to bring about change. Are you intelligent enough to comprehend to that? Or, are you going to get all confused and change the subject again?

[theKed]

93. Something something something Hillary45

Is the response you're looking for, I imagine.

[HiPointDem]

144. his m.o.

[marmar]

96. Mon dieu......

[tama]

140. I've grown weary of facepalms

from all sides, against all sides. To me that looks now just gesture of self-blinding. Frustration is understandable and please don't think I'm judging. But still... I rather watch and see.

[loyalsister]

147. Fredrick Douglas did run for office

Douglass remained active in the United States' struggle to reach its potential as a "land of the free". Douglass actively supported women's suffrage. Without his approval, he became the first African American nominated for Vice President of the United States as the running mate of Victoria Woodhull on the impracticable and small Equal Rights Party ticket. Douglass held multiple public offices.....

In 1877, Douglass was appointed a United States Marshal. In 1881, he was appointed Recorder of Deeds for the District of Columbia.
In 1888, Douglass spoke at Claflin College, a black college in Orangeburg, South Carolina, and the oldest such institution in the state.[51]
At the 1888 Republican National Convention, Douglass became the first African American to receive a vote for President of the United States in a major party's roll call vote.[52][53][54]
He was appointed minister-resident and consul-general to the Republic of Haiti (1889–1891). In 1892, the Haitian government appointed Douglass as its commissioner to the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition. He spoke for Irish Home Rule and the efforts of leader Charles Stewart Parnell in Ireland. He briefly revisited Ireland in 1886.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrick_Douglas

[Chef Eric]

149. Thanks. Now I know. nt

[2pooped2pop]

39. lol and anti Occupy

lol are you sure you are in the right place here? You think we should admire Batman but you think we are the ones who are delusional?

OMG U R 2 FUNNY

[graham4anything]

52. I am not anti-Occupy. Please do not distort what I said

I said they should name themselves and run for office

Most 60s protesters still around now know one works from within, not from tearing it down

I think they are making a huge mistake being hidden namewise, because anyone claims to be with them and they are hijacked, and they waste years not running

Nader himself should have won senate, but that would have meant grunt work and instead of grunting, he whines.

you gotta be in it to win it

[littleswan]

63. The Dark Knight is actually a libertarian hero

Are you a libertarian? Otherwise your praise is misguided.

[graham4anything]

76. A better comparison is Paul Kersey in Death Wish and Bernie Goetz real life

The movies and TV are fictional.

We may have rooted for Charles Bronson's CHARACTER in Death wish, HOWEVER, I was happy when Bernie Goetz was arrested for his attempted paranoia shootings of someone he thought might be wishing him harm. And Bronson was just acting a role. He was NOT a vigilante himself.

I would say the Dark Knight is a crime stopper. He is not a vigilante, nor an anarchist, nor a libertarian.
He is a fictional ideal like Superman (who really is for Truth, Justice and all of mankind, not just the American way, but was created by two American Jewish men and someone inserted the American way into the TV show I believe.)
But I myself would not want a real Dark Knight or Superman as they do not exist.

But a better example is
Democratic senator Paul Wellstone- who was a DEMOCRATIC PERSON from start to finish,
not third party, not independent, not libertarian.

and after Bush took office, they created a tv show and character BASED on Paul Wellstone the person, JED BARTLETT to give those who did not get a democratic president in office, but got George W. Bush instead(thanks Ralph Nader again), at least an hour a week reprieve of all things Bush.

However, JED BARTLETT was fictional.
and soon as President Obama won, West Wing went, as we didn't need a fictional candidate anymore, we got the real one.

And Martin Sheen played Jed Bartlett. Love Martin Sheen.
He is a liberal democratic person, who supported President Obama and the worker.
NOT an anarchist. Works from within not from without. Works FOR not against.

Think that is the difference
Working FOR a cause but not hurting others just to get change.

see separate post on Paul Wellstone and Al Gore and Ralph Nader.
It belongs in a new titled thread.

[theKed]

95. Please.

Brcause this has increasingly fuck all to do with the OP.

[HiPointDem]

145. that's the intent.

[caseymoz]

94. The only resemblence between V and anonymous

is the same mask, and Anonymous was using it first.

Lose it's Constitutional rights to peaceful assembly? Now I worry for your mental health.

Please, inform yourself. Take yourself out of Batman and Columbo, and stop preaching about which unrelated fictional vigilante people should vote for.

[idwiyo]

164. How about you shut down your PC, make yourself a nice cup of tea, sit down and relax.

Really, you are taking the plight of the abused rich much to personally. And Anonymous is not really after you, unless of course you are one of those arseholes who believe its their right to rob the poor, or their enablers who are delusional enough to think they might get super rich one day and start robing the poor too.

[Bluenorthwest]

182. Frank Miller, author of Dark Knight, is very right wing and pro Bush, many consider his work post

9-11 to be racist in nature, the film industry is not going to reward that sort of point of view because they are not racists, nor right wingers. Here is Miller defending Bush, saying he should have been more war oriented, and claiming that those who dislike GW Bush are 'completely mad'. Do you agree with Miller on these things as well?

"Where I would fault President Bush the most, was that in the wake of 9/11, he motivated our military, but he didn't call the nation into a state of war. He didn't explain that this would take a communal effort against a common foe. So we've been kind of fighting a war on the side, and sitting off like a bunch of Romans complaining about it. Also, I think that George Bush has an uncanny knack of being someone people hate. I thought Clinton inspired more hatred than any President I had ever seen, but I've never seen anything like Bush-hatred. It's completely mad."

Here is his support for the Iraq War:
"Mostly I hear people say, "Why did we attack Iraq?", for instance Well, we're taking on an idea. Nobody questions why after Pearl Harbor we attacked Nazi Germany. It was because we were taking on a form of global fascism, we're doing the same thing now."
http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/01/26/frank-miller-talks-war-politics-on-npr/

[HiPointDem]

13. it's offline now...

[another_liberal]

22. To paraphrase Wellington . . .

To paraphrase the Duke of Wellington:

"I dont know what effect Anonymous will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they terrify me."

[marble falls]

35. I may have some ambivalence about Anonymous, I have none at all about Aaron Schwartz .....

he was not treated as he should have been Constitutionally, regardless of the 'legality' or wide use of the tactics brought to bear on him. What a loss. What a crime.

[2pooped2pop]

37. U R right.

No, he wasn't treated fair. He didn't think so and neither did the other guy who this prosecutor drove to commit suicide. If people within our own government were not so hell bent on America's destruction we would not need someone with balls and hacking skills to help us.

The laws for the rich are different than the laws for the poor. There is nothing fair in that.

[marble falls]

42. What's the crock part???

[2pooped2pop]

46. so sorry

I read your post as "he was treated fair." My fault. Sorry bout that.

Gnome saying?

[marble falls]

57. s'cool.

[marble falls]

59. The laws for the rich are different than the laws for the poor. There is nothing fair in that.

You are right about that!

[randome]

38. This reminds one of the super-duper secret Assange files he promised to explode.

The ones that would bring major banks to their knees.

Good God, are you guys falling for this again? 'Multiple warheads'. How scary. How juvenile.

We're not going to tell you what we have but one day...one day...you'll all be in BIIIIIIIGGGG trouble.

Way to honor Aaron Swartz' name.

[2pooped2pop]

48. tis true that I wonder about how much power

and how effective they are as I really really wanted the banks to be exposed. But since they are all we have, I will continue to hope that they succeed and that some of their members do have mega skills.

At least they have the balls to try.

[randome]

53. I don't agree they are all we have.

Big change in a big country is incremental, not sound bytes and explosions. I think Anonymous does more harm than good when they repeatedly promise things then fail to deliver.

The tide is turning in this country. It never turns quickly enough.

[2pooped2pop]

56. Occupy and Anonymous

have had a big role in the change that has come. They are the ones who changed the talking points.

[marble falls]

64. I think you're right about that. They are all we have and they've managed to get the talking ....

point changed.

[tama]

69. Speaking Truth to Power

And making it noticed.

The little boy shouts and then the "adults" on DU and elsewhere have serious and grown up discussion on Emperor's clothes and their fine, nuanced qualities.

[marble falls]

74. I think a lot of people were quietly thinking they were a minority in a world of teabaggery ....

Anonymous and OWS opened the discussion so even dummies like me could see who the real minorities were. Maybe W got us into a war mindset, that going against the leadership was some sort of anti American or unpatriotic action. This nation is not right wing or even center right. Just some segments of concentrated wealth are.

[tama]

86. You fell for it as a nation

and fell badly:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg

The media is still mostly controlled by corporate thuggery and sensationalism and big money interests, and people sort of know that. Only cure is to keep on talking p2p, remembering and staying aware. Also of the reasonable suspicion that there are paid pens in many places, including DU, spreading their talking points in the interests of those who believe they benefit from lying to people, not from truth.

[randome]

71. Changing the talking points was not enough.

Not by a long shot.

[2pooped2pop]

75. no, that's why they hack

But changing the talking points is the first step to making those changes that are a coming.

[marble falls]

79. No doubt, but it got a lot more voices and a divergent opinion into the discussion ...

I appreciate Anonymous but I wonder how it polices itself and how it guarantees it won't go off the tracks. The road to hell is paved in good intentions.

[tama]

107. By

being semi-open clandestine network and discussion forum. And open trademark at the same time. Anonymous.

The hackers and crackers with the know how to pull of big collective operations like this know how to encrypt and have discussions and make collective decisions without leaving traces. It's not difficult.

And as network and discussion forum it works and self-organizes as anarchy. Someone takes initiative, others are free to join or stay out, those who decide to join plan and self-organize for the project and execute it as they see fit.

It's very simple. Nothing guarantees that anonymous won't go off the tracks. It's open "trade mark" of any guy, anything, anywhere, any when. Which means NOBODY, I repeat NOBODY, has control to keep Anonymous anybody off the tracks. And that's the whole fucking point: We don't have to stay off the tracks for ever. We can self-correct and find our way. Together.

[randome]

109. So how did they convene their 'emergency council' then?

As my sig line says: Don't look for heroes. BE one.

First it was Occupy then Assange then Anonymous. Who will save us? No one. We need to take direct action ourselves. The only problem with that is 'direct action' is a much slower, nuanced and complicated process than 'detonating' secret files.

[tama]

112. I respect that point

Although I think it is misplaced, as none of those have ever claimed to be our saviors. But in case that some people would so think and believe, that point is worth repeating. No, they are not saviors and we all are heros of our own lives.

Good point, friend.

[randome]

115. Same to you!

[HiPointDem]

146. no, big change is *not* incremental. the ptb would have us believe it is, though.

[tama]

62. Read the statement

The point that they have no beef with ordinary folks working in the system and want no harm to them, is worth respect. They are fighting back, as their conscience tells, but doing it in the most ethical and responsible way they can think of. And they can think pretty well - listen and pay attention, you might learn a lot. Prejudice makes us just more stupid.

[randome]

67. 'Prejudice'? Where does that come from?

How are they fighting back against anything? By promising they might someday decide to 'release the Kraken', so to speak?

This is the same double-speak Assange used about the Bank files. It's nonsense. Why anyone would choose to fall for it again befuddles me.

[tama]

80. Your prejudice

You've made up your mind that there got to be something sinister e.g. about the Bank files, instead of considering it possible that the explanation of events that is well known to you may be true and no other explanation is needed. Or if there's something else behind the scenes, of which we don't know nothing, it's necessarily something sinister and not e.g. about protecting individuals from harm. Lot of good deeds go unnoticed and stay hidden from public, for good reasons. Prejudice is suspecting and claiming malicious intentions and practices without any evidence to back them up. You are befuddled by your own prejudice of claiming guilty without proof, not by others sticking to sound and common sense principle of innocent until proven otherwise.

Clear enough or do I need to rephrase?

[randome]

83. A promise to 'bring the banks to their knees' sounds kind of sinister.

And 'sinister' is precisely what Anonymous is going after in this latest attempt to latch onto the publicity surrounding a dead man.

There are always things going on that we know nothing about. I don't presume anything. Just take events at face value and trying not to apply my own presumptions.

Anonymous is full of hot air in this latest screed. That's how it looks to me.

[tama]

98. Ending class war

is not sinister. Banks are not people, real human beings. By taking side with banks you are taking side of class war of corporate persons of monopoly of money creation against we the people. Real, breathing, hurting human beings. Like Aaron, who was killed in the name of abstract intellectual property rights. Persecuted for "crime" without a victim.

It's all just in your head, abstract ideas going around in short circuit in your upper cortex without connecting to anything real. Flesh and blood, real human bodies, real human emotions, real human suffering, real human compassion.

[randome]

101. 'taking side with banks'. You keep trying to put words in my hands.

I'm talking about Anonymous' lack of credibility. They got nothin'. If they did and they were so concerned about righting the wrongs of the world, why offer to release heavily redacted versions to select organizations? My God, this is nothing but posturing by some bored teen with a good grasp of English.

I believe in 'Keep hope alive' but I don't see the point of looking for hope from anonymous postings on the Internet.

'Real people', like you said.

[tama]

117. That was inferred

from attaching human emotions to banks, as if taking them down could be sinister.

They are abstract constructs that we have built, and in some - very limited and totally abstact sense - they have become extremely powerful and hurting us bad.

What makes us humans is not just our ability to learn, all animals can do that, but our ability to learn away and deconstruct what we have constructed, so we can keep on learning. And living.

And that's what this is about, taking down abstract power structures. That's one aspect of the process. Others plant trees and tend gardens, others heal and nurture, others do other things. But best part of it, it's not under control. No matter how hard some people may try to control all and everything, they can never succeed. Because control is just abstract idea.

[caseymoz]

97. This is a great piece of writing.

With a typo or two.

Whoever wrote that declaration was no slacker or lamer. Except for the term "warhead" (and when you're talking to a nuclear power, you have impress) it doesn't sound juvenile to me. Whoever wrote this has thought it through very clearly.

Before you scoff, Assange isn't dead and hasn't been extradicted yet. Only in the event of those did he threaten to dump the file. And if he has anything, he wouldn't do it beforehand those happen because then he has no protection. Nothing has disproved its existence.

[freedom fighter jh]

66. It's the U.S. Sentencing Commission, not the Supreme Court

Anonymous is protesting sentencing guidelines that allow the system to use the threat of disproportionate sentencing so that the "justice" system can prosecute selectively, which means pretty much that they can put anyone in jail for anything. Thus the system can make an example of someone like Aaron Swartz: Try to stop the march of injustice (as Aaron did with his activism against SOPA) and we'll use the "justice" system to make your life miserable.

I don't know whether to love these guys or fear them. What they are saying needs to be said. Hacking into high-level government websites is like standing on a rooftop shouting their message. But who are they really? Government infiltrates all protest movements, even if that means professing exactly what they (government) work against. Could be an effective way of finding dissidents. I'm not saying Anonymous is that -- I'm saying they *could* be and I don't know any way to know if they are.

[burnsei sensei]

82. The rule of fear is not the rule of reason.

I feel no sympathy at all for the Supreme Court or for the makers of laws designed to intimidate.
Where the law does not protect, it will oppress.
Where it oppresses, there is no limit to what the state may do by way of it.
In this amoral world, the possibility of anything should be quite scary.

[freedom fighter jh]

91. Can you explain?

I don't understand how your post is a response to mine.

[annabanana]

116. +1 ^^^^. . . n/t

[caseymoz]

99. That's not all they're protesting, though.

Sentencing guildelines. Swartz's suicide was what incited them.

[randome]

102. How are they protesting anything?

By offering to release heavily redacted versions to only select organizations? And then only if they are in the mood or something, I guess.

So much for righting the wrongs of the world. So much for the Revolution.

[caseymoz]

114. People tried revolution in the 20th century.

In Russia, in Spain, in China, in Cambodia. It didn't seem to work out very well. Does it occur to you that people might be more cautious because of that? Revolution doesn't seem to go well in the modern world, the Arab spring notwithstanding, there's no guarantee that they're going to end up with governments better than what they had.

You had the Occupy movement, who got themselves beaten up and robbed by the police.

You have intelligence services that are infiltrating everything and everybody, and the government has this law on the books that allows them to make you disappear if you're too much trouble.

Therefore, it's not going to be as thrilling as watching Batman, I'm sorry to say, but I don't know how many options are left. This system isn't going to get better without some type of pressure. We're seeing now that even gun reform might stall.

The one thing that's encouraging to me is Anonymous says that they can't be part of the solution. They could pressure for it, but progressives are going to have to step up and press for the solutions. I don't know of another group of agitators who don't have in mind taking leadership. Aside from anarchist, which wouldn't call for any such thing. That's refreshing.

[tama]

138. Aside from anarchist

And why would anarchist not call for any such thing? Think about it, internalizing and taking that attitude for real life philosophy, seriously and consciously and with conviction:

- No, I don't have all the answers.
- No, I can't force others to think and believe like I do, nor should I try to.
- No, I'm not in control, nor trying to control.

But:
- I'm human being just like you, with empathy. When you hurt, I hurt too. And I don't want to hurt, but help you not to hurt so I don't hurt.
- I have my experiences and opinions about the reasons why we hurt. So, with my heart and mind and all of my being I will do the best I can to address the causes why we hurt, and make the pain go away.
- I know I can't do anything alone, just by myself, to remove the causes of our mutual pain. I can do just my own little bit, according to what I believe and what I can do or stop doing.
- I share my point of view and opinions about necessity of state and such blah blah, if anyone wants to listen, but I can't force them, and I listen to others and learn from them what I can learn.
- Those who see things differently or for other reasons work inside or through the system, they are not my enemies. They are fellow human beings. If they hurt, I hurt too. I don't want to hurt them so that I don't hurt.
- When the moment comes to refuse and resist, and fight back to tear down or change abstract structures that hurt us all, I do so to the best of my limited abilities. Others, who are like me and don't want to keep on hurting, will do their bit according to their believes and capabilities.
- I can take initiative, as free human being, with full responsibility for my actions, considering all as carefully and intelligently as I can. I don't take initiative to force others, but to open space and possibilities for also others to act (or inact) according to their convictions and conscience. Hopefully for common good, in spirit of mutual aid, and less hurtful and more caring society as whole.

That's the "anarchist" logic I imagine behind the statement. Sounds logical and anarchist at least to me. Thanks for reading so far, if you did, friend.

[caseymoz]

142. You misunderstand me.

"Aside from anarchist" meant they would call for or incite agitation, but they just wouldn't be thinking of being leaders of the system that follows, which is what Anonymous does with this message. They said we're not the ones who could actually affect change or build another system, other groups have to do that, we have to stay in the shadows.

[tama]

148. Then it was happy misunderstanding

Writing that litany clarified some of my own garbled thoughts, so thanks anyway.

[Lordquinton]

152. They took insurance, like Assange

They know that if they ever face a trial, it will not be fair. So they even the playing field so they won't be caught, because it will end up compromising powerful people. I think they should release some information to show they aren't bluffing, but I highly doubt they are.

[burnsei sensei]

104. I hope this explains it

Anonymous is protesting sentencing guidelines that allow the system to use the threat of disproportionate sentencing so that the "justice" system can prosecute selectively, which means pretty much that they can put anyone in jail for anything.

If this is not an attempt to impose a rule of fear, I don't know what is.
The "mandatory minimums" were made on the same model.
When are American jurists going to be allowed to think for themselves?
When is the rule of fear going to be replaced with the rule of reason in these situations?
Where the system makes examples, there is the rule of fear, not the rule of reason.

[freedom fighter jh]

110. Thanks for the explanation.

Yes, I agree. But I think you were agreeing with me in the first place, so how could I not?

[Marrah_G]

100. <3

[tama]

139. +1

[coalition_unwilling]

103. Memo to the U.S. Department of Justice: you might start by investigating

Departments of English (for the correct use of the past participle in 'have bidden,' although the usage is a bit archaic now, often being substituted for with 'have bided').

Just a suggestion to our fearless crusaders for the right of the already comfortable to afflict the already afflicted.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bide

[jsr]

108. Yep. Double-click ECHELON. Ctrl-F "have bidden", "has bidden"

[Fire Walk With Me]

118. FREE THE ANONS.

Rapists get lighter sentences than those wielded against suspected Anons, to send a message.

That the country is so corrupt that a faceless citizens' commission must act against it, speaks endless volumes. That their having struck a blow against such injustice thrills and empowers, speaks volumes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Tsk. Tsk. Mustn't annoy the bosses.

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. So...make a YouTube video holding a gun and threatening the government

is bad and you are a mouth-breathing whateverwhatever who belongs in prison.

BUT, learn to code, put on a Burger King mask, and actually take down a government website, and you're a folk hero.


Yup, business as usual.

[EastKYLiberal]

127. All these calls for revolution are quite troubling. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

129. I am fine with revolution, just not at the behest of dickheads in masks nt

[randome]

130. 'Dickheads in masks' who encourage others to do the work FOR them.

[Dreamer Tatum]

131. Makes you wonder what they'll do if you refuse nt

[graham4anything]

133. the clearest corrolation seems to be what V(fiction) did, and what Tim McVeigh delusionally did

and 19 babies and many others died becaue McVeigh was deluded with his hate the government feelings and decided a conclusion based on total bullshit because of his blinding hatred of government.

radical extremism, violence, death destruction

and taking down computer systems, in the age of corporate personhood, because of the
Ralph Nader siding with Bush to bring Roberts and Alito into the court with his lies of both being the same (yeah, tell me Gore would have picked Roberts and Alito)...

well if corporations are people now, then computer systems=people too.
Making McVeigh and taking down computers one and the same corrolated out.

this is NOT changing the system from within.

this is blowing up the entire system.

Without computers these days, does one realize that 99.99% of ALL PEOPLE worldwide lose out?
How would people who's banks now have paperless invoices and internet only(no more bankbooks folks) know how much money they would have?
These are regular people the 99% professed to be the one they are thinking of.

Panic would ensue. Panic leads to death, NOT to a new system.

But then, to find something compatable,
I doubt children ever think past what happens to their meal, when they throw their plate of food on the ground and whine and whine and pout and cry.
After all, mommy and daddy will just give them more.
(i.e. if the system is gone, there is NO more.)

(as an example no snark implied or meant).

[Lordquinton]

153. They threatened no one's life

and never have. They aren't fomenting revolution, they are pushing for the rule of law. They want the unconstitutional laws of the past decade to be struck down, and they want little things like fair trials, and juries to be the norm.

If you have anything wrong with the things they want, this is not the website for you. Take umbrige with their methods, even they think they went too far, but their ideals are what we all believe in too.

[Puzzledtraveller]

135. There would be hundreds of recs if a republican administration was in office. n/t

[Oilwellian]

168. Actions speak louder than words

In one ear, Anonymous is telling me that transparency and access to information is paramount to a free democracy.

In the other ear, Anonymous is telling me such information is being held in escrow.

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS!

If you're about people having access to information, RELEASE IT!

If you're about power and keeping information from us...like the governments, corporations and people you deride...YOU'RE NO DIFFERENT!

STOP YANKING OUR CHAINS!

(I saw this message on Reddit and agree with the sentiments.)

[samsingh]

171. kick

[idwiyo]

175. K&R

[lovuian]

180. Our Justice Department isn't about Justice

or the Supreme Court

we have prisons filled to the brim and the death sentence of which over a thousand have been killed

Wall street banksters still run amok and not prosecuted
the lies to the American people and Congress about weapons of Mass Destruction
have not been convicted

torture was used on prisoners
no justice



but then when others expose the shadow government lies ...they are thrown in prison for life

and pedophiles escape conviction....

is this a Just system? No

when the Justice system is corrupt then the country will fall too ruin do to corruption

[Zorra]

181. After the filibuster failure, I trust Anonymous and Occupy more than the government.

Wall St doesn't own them like they do the government.