[sanity assassin]

Take action, be pro-active, support the hackers.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/18/1336223

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_1

[RAILhead]

[Millennium]

Wonderful. So Republicans don't have a right to free speech?

[voodoo]

Aw heck, this will only generate sympathy for the GOP. Only the hardcore supporters read the websites anyway.

[Spliffdaddy]

we do make the liberals look dumb.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Wonderful. So Republicans don't have a right to free speech?

All is fair in love and war, as they say. Now, where can I browse Amertican based, Hamas suuporting websites?

Free speech doesn't exist, and who decides what we should read, are the very same people who should be on the receiving end of this attack.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Take action, be pro-active, support the hackers.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/18/1336223

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_1

Because of course, free speech only matters when it is the speech you agree with

For folks who claim to be so open-minded and inclusive, supportive of Constitutional Rights (except the 2nd amendment, of course), this is a nice contradiction.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
we do make the liberals look dumb.

No, you don't. You're a minority of blind souls who mutually appreciate each other's idiocy. You make yourselves look ever more desperate by the day, in the eyes of the world, of course.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Because of course, free speech only matters when it is the speech you agree with

For folks who claim to be so open-minded and inclusive, supportive of Constitutional Rights (except the 2nd amendment, of course), this is a nice contradiction.

Then allow free spech to everyone. If not, then expect such reactions. Of course people have biases, but you can't use your argument while at the same time taking away the right to free speech for others.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
All is fair in love and war, as they say. Now, where can I browse Amertican based, Hamas suuporting websites?

Free speech doesn't exist, and who decides what we should read, are the very same people who should be on the receiving end of this attack.

What is an Amertican?

The US State Dept. decides what you should read? After all, they're the folks who have Hamas on the terrorist list, and have had them there for a number of years, across GOP and Democrat administrations.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What is an Amertican?

The US State Dept. decides what you should read? After all, they're the folks who have Hamas on the terrorist list, and have had them there for a number of years, across GOP and Democrat administrations.

Then free speech is not universal, irrespective of what the Government says. Not everyone shares the sanctioned views of a Government, therefore, opinions of the people are not allowed to be expressed if they cross those lines the Government dictates.

Why can't I read about Al-Qaeeda supporters based in the US? Or Hamas? If you're going to use the argument of free speech, then you can't just draw a line under it based on where the Government says it should begin and end.


Oh, and grow up a little, typos happen all the time, use common sense, rather than try to be smart.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Take action, be pro-active, support the hackers.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/18/1336223

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_1

Yeah, support illegal activities that destroy personal property. I'm really starting to see how liberals are a threat to society.

First you guys get all torqued regarding an old woman putting her hand over another woman's mouth, but find it admirable when someone hacks a site taking away the free speech of someone else. So, which is it? Should free speech be quelled or not? Tell us.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, support illegal activities that destroy personal property. I'm really starting to see how liberals are a threat to society.

First you guys get all torqued regarding an old woman putting her hand over another woman's mouth, but find it admirable when someone hacks a site taking away the free speech of someone else. So, which is it? Should free speech be quelled or not? Tell us.

I'm sorry, try not to lump me in with everybody else here, it'll go far in making your argument that bit more credible.

[Spliffdaddy]

heh. you lost that argument.

This is your thread, remember?

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh. you lost that argument.

This is your thread, remember?

I lost nothing, since I haven't conceded a thing.
You don't get it, and like Millennium alluded to, you're only talking out of your own biases based on what you wish to be heard.

What happens if I'm a Hamas supporter? What if I think the Government are wrong in it's approach to the group, and the banning of websites promoting their ideals? If they can take them down, then I'm hardly going to be supportive of those who object to causing disruption to Republican ones.

I'm sure I should be allowed to air my views on the web without Governmental restrictions, as long as it's not a national security issue. But hey, since when does supporting Hamad equal 'I want to bomb the US'?

[sanity assassin]

Hypocritical thinking is nothing new, and it has been woefully displayed in here.

See, as soon as you read about anythnig that relates to your right-wing views, you hurl as many arguments in support of your positions; but if it's anything other than that, you suddenly disappear without a word.

Like I said, hypocritical thinking.

Oh, and vmarks? The day I actually ever take in, or give credence to a word you say, is the day I'll support bush.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...For folks who claim to be so open-minded and inclusive, supportive of Constitutional Rights (except the 2nd amendment, of course), this is a nice contradiction.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
I lost nothing, since I haven't conceded a thing.
You don't get it, and like Millennium alluded to, you're only talking out of your own biases based on what you wish to be heard.

What happens if I'm a Hamas supporter? What if I think the Government are wrong in it's approach to the group, and the banning of websites promoting their ideals? If they can take them down, then I'm hardly going to be supportive of those who object to causing disruption to Republican ones.

I'm sure I should be allowed to air my views on the web without Governmental restrictions, as long as it's not a national security issue. But hey, since when does supporting Hamad equal 'I want to bomb the US'?

And you don't see how Al-Qaeda sites (especially those hosted in the US) are a threat to national security? Dude, they're a known terrorist organization being hunted by every domestic law enforcement agency known to man.

Now, I know you'd like to compare Al-Qaeda to the Republicans, sounds really funny and gives you liberals a chuckle, but that's just stupid.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And you don't see how Al-Qaeda sites (especially those hosted in the US) are a threat to national security? Dude, they're a known terrorist organization being hunted by every domestic law enforcement agency known to man.

Now, I know you'd like to compare Al-Qaeda to the Republicans, sounds really funny and gives you liberals a chuckle, but that's just stupid.

AQ is not Hamas. Wow.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by voodoo:
AQ is not Hamas. Wow.

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. Though, Hamas is on the terrorist watch-list. Possibly a site by them wouldn't be bothered, I'm sure it would be scutinized. Any terrorist activites on such a site would no doubt cause the gov't to come down on it, hard.

Now if you're a Humus supporter, I can sympathize, I love the stuff. Especially with lots of garlic and olive oil (light on the Tahini), spread on some pita. Yummy.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. Though, Hamas is on the terrorist watch-list. Possibly a site by them wouldn't be bothered, I'm sure it would be scutinized. Any terrorist activites on such a site would no doubt cause the gov't to come down on it, hard.

Now if you're a Humus supporter, I can sympathize, I love the stuff. Especially with lots of garlic and olive oil (light on the Tahini), spread on some pita. Yummy.

Ya I've heard good things about humus. Haven't had the chance to taste it yet, but it is on the ASAP list.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Ya I've heard good things about humus. Haven't had the chance to taste it yet, but it is on the ASAP list.

Isn't humus decayed matter?

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Isn't humus decayed matter?

it is also:

humus - a thick spread made from mashed chickpeas, tahini, lemon juice and garlic; used especially as a dip for pita; originated in the Middle East

look in your local supermarket for some. it's good on crackers.

as to the topic, "hacking" their websites is illegal, useless, and will ultimately work against any goals they claim to have. they should put up an anti-republican website if they're really hellbent on doing something.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Isn't humus decayed matter?

Only if you leave the lid off too long, gets brown and nasty.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
it is also:

humus - a thick spread made from mashed chickpeas, tahini, lemon juice and garlic; used especially as a dip for pita; originated in the Middle East

look in your local supermarket for some. it's good on crackers.

as to the topic, "hacking" their websites is illegal, useless, and will ultimately work against any goals they claim to have. they should put up an anti-republican website if they're really hellbent on doing something.

Nasty!

I agree that they will only bring a bad name for themselves. Maybe they should have a demonstration instead?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Nasty!

Actually quite tasty! I haven't had any in a couple months. Maybe I should make some...

BG

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
it is also:

humus - a thick spread made from mashed chickpeas, tahini, lemon juice and garlic; used especially as a dip for pita; originated in the Middle East

The name for that food is usually romanized as "hummus"; note the repeated m. "Hummous" is also used occasionally, but this is rare.

Good stuff, though.

[lil'babykitten]

mmm. Yummy stuff.




(the Homous)

[MacNStein]

Ok... the thread is now about ME foods!


Humus (or Hummus)

(2) 16oz cans of chick peas
(2) large toes of garlic (or more if desired, I like 4)
3 tablespoons of lemon juice
3 tablespoons of Tahini (aka. sesame butter)
1/4 cup of olive oil
salt to taste
(optional) 1 tablespoon of chopped fresh parsley

Put all of it into a food processor and beat to smooth consistency. Pour into bowl and garnish with parsley (if desired). Serve with pita or crackers.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Serve with pita or crackers.

And Olives!

[macvillage.net]

May not be to hard to do.

Look at the websites. Seems all republican websites from the GOP site, to GWB's election site are all Microsoft products.

Dems seem to have embraced open source UNIX.

Even HTML is pretty interesting. Republicans got loads of proprietary stuff, minimal CSS, lots of errors.

Dems even have XHTML on parts of their homepage.


I'd say just let it go. It will crash itself.

[Atomic Rooster]

You have to watch some links that the neocons post as there sources. Some are damn near white supremacist.

[Lerkfish]

I'm against this harebrained scheme. Its not right on so many levels.
Republicans should have equal access to the internet or anything else.
I think their ability to speak should not be infringed....any dems who think so are attempting to use the enemies' tactics against them, and that makes you just as bad as them.

Preferrably, they should be able to disseminate whatever they want, and so should we.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm against this harebrained scheme. Its not right on so many levels.
Republicans should have equal access to the internet or anything else.
I think their ability to speak should not be infringed....any dems who think so are attempting to use the enemies' tactics against them, and that makes you just as bad as them.

Preferrably, they should be able to disseminate whatever they want, and so should we.

Pro freedom of speech here.

[BlackGriffen]

The worst part about this is how stupid the plotters have to be. They'll only succeed in drawing attention and sympathy to that which they desired to squelch.

Counter speech with speech, not stupidity.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The worst part about this is how stupid the plotters have to be. They'll only succeed in drawing attention and sympathy to that which they desired to squelch.

Counter speech with speech, not stupidity.

BlackGriffen

exactly. I think this proves that republicans are not the exclusive bastion of the stupid, there are stupid people in all parties.

[BlackGriffen]

If these so-called hackers had two brain cells to rub together, this is what they'd do - increase the bandwidth usage of the sites. Not to the point of blocking the site, mind you, but done consistently so that they have to pay higher bandwidth charges. This especially works well if they can get the site to pay for a fatter pipe. This way, they sap their strength is a way that isn't high profile, but is still likely to have an impact.

Even doing simple things like making fake web sites with links like:
Ultra high quality vids of nekkid babes!.

Also makes for a good practical joke on porn hounds, and may make Bush's web site start coming up in porn searches.

Also fun, is forcing forum users to load images from Bush's web site:

(btw, is the picture of Bush on that flyer photoshopped on? Everything but that part of the image looks kosher to me...)

BlackGriffen