>> ^radx:

Is it really just the fear of what those nutjobs on the other side of the aisle would do if they were in charge?


Yes. Yes it is.

Look closely...you can see Dick Cheney fleeing the scene of a dynamite plunger. KOO KOO!

This must be the kid that helped shred up all of Dick Cheney's stuff! He even stole the maniacal laughter Dick made!

Well, I'll point to one example. When they went after Scientology I was quite surprised of the organization and setup. In multiple cities in the U.S. and in International places (mostly NATO countries) like London. They got hundreds in some locations and thousands of people/protesters to show up and protest Scientology's right to be a religion (as they're considered one in the U.S--not sure where they are, out of country of course). Usually, their Constitutional right to be a religion, would be something I would fight for, but they have crossed the line more than enough times that they seem like fair game to me. Hell, we had atleast a couple of hundred, maybe even one thousand, protesting the church in Utah of all places! Utah is far off from any of their headquarters or any major "church", installation, and "health" centers.

(Off-topic Sidenote: The Mormon or LDS church also crossed the line with Proposition 8 in California--I've seen the LDS church get involved in other political affairs, but only to the same extent all churches in this country do--block voting is ridiculous and should almost cause your vote to be counted as less-as you're actively using religion as a political pulpit and then voting from that; if a connection could be made I'd think those votes should be countermanded as well as the religion's tax exemption status--especially when you have meetings, literally, before a vote. Mormons do this, I'VE BEEN to them!)

The fact that Anonymous can pull that off over night means a great deal. They're most defiantly not weekend warriors in their mother's basement (although I'm sure there are plenty like that). They must have quite a few people that are highly trained in a wide range of topics as they've gone after many targets; easily separating, for the majority of Anonymous, what's an incorrect target and what deserves their attention. To me this means you can't write them off in any fashion; as they may have "Ivory Tower" support, due to their targets and being able to seem "right" and "innocuous" at every turn--people cheer them on.

If I had to pick, I would wager that Anonymous can and does affect more changes socially than al-Qaeda; al-Qaeda has a poor societal impact except the desperate or those that have nothing to lose--only if it used like-wise tactics, which they won't (likewise tactics meaning: terrorism, like 9-11). Their methodology is *flashy*, so every media outlet focuses their news-time and airtime on them. If Anonymous did these infamous type of events except against an U.S. enemy, would they have the same "deeply rooted" infamy/notoriety in American society? I'd say yes.

Outside the U.S. they may have that attribution (good doers/fighting evil or infamous) already in certain places. Right now, Americans are more concerned if their McMansion will be a viable end solution or if it's another "living beyond your means", moment.

I do agree with you that Anonymous must be worried about their banner being lifted by the wrong person. But, as their is no leader in Anonymous it will lead to inter-anon wars; we've seen a few, but most have ended blindingly fast. You almost never hear about it unless you dig around (and even then you find out it's a year old).

I'm just trying to remind people that if Anonymous whimsically can get Colbert to wear the mask in solidarity and can gets thousands of protesters to show up at your doorbell overnight (with same mask ), they may have power that I doubt they've even tapped into yet.

Plus, I do think China or any country willing to stand toe to toe with the U.S. would be grateful to have a voracious enemy of the U.S. on their side (yes, I agree that China would be bad; I also doubt that they would choose it--maybe more like Russia). Especially, if it ends up being one that knows the U.S. fairly well. Secondly, as before, taking random people off the street in Anonymous's name would only feed the machine. We have yet to see what happens if Anonymous, itself, is attacked. It's always been a side attack due to another on going event. The rules might change for both sides if it became a "war" (how they target and what is targeted, then how does the information become presentable). Yes, the U.S. could cut-off the Internet, but I think we've learned enough that THAT may be a grander problem for the U.S. than what it originally had (it's happened everywhere else; citizens revolting).

Yes, Anonymous "may" be getting too much credit, but since their anonymous... They might loose badly even in a straight up information war. But, none of this has happened yet or been tested... I agree with the majority of what you're saying @Yogi . I'm just reminding people that underestimation of your enemy (do we, as Americans, really want Anonymous as an enemy? The Colbert show seems to show the opposite...)

Get rid of one person and another falls in to place, and the hacks they do can be taught ridiculously fast. The other side requires *tax payers'* money or private contractors (using *tax payers'* money, or someone like Dick Cheney who has Halliburton), all of which seem shady as what they do is kill other Americans, arrest other Americans, kill NATO citizens or extradite NATO citizens, and heaven forbid: use black-ops for non-Western countries (Anonymous has enough foresight to get clear confirmation of any event and spread it virally; like a video).

If these guys lose one person it takes quite a bit of time to replace--even if they become misaligned with the publics' view, like the guy in Colbert's piece. Everyone will question his motives now except for the complete utter sheep with no in-the-know friends (to explain what Anonymous is doing).

All I'm trying to say is that in an age of information the U.S. may find themselves on equal footing in a war they'd have to start. The U.S. tries a physical response it will be posted in full glorious detail on the net with redundancy ad nauseum (one well placed real-time camera or auto-upload camera and it becomes a nightmare). The U.S. employs thousands of people that can barely log into their e-mail account(s)--these people are also responsible for enacting physical responses. Imagine an Anonymous that hacks, but keeps the game running. Key loggers, viruses, worms, trojans, hardware hacks, software hacks, people IN the government in on it...? Anonymous has always pulled their stunt quickly and shown everyone the ramifications; don't you think a prolonged version would be highly dangerous for both sides?

Again this assumes a lot about Anonymous just from what I've seen them accomplish in the past. They are most defiantly not some sort of elite commando force. What they lack is simply made up in their ability to manipulate data; which is HUGE in this day and age... Anyway that's long enough; respond to the areas you think need to be toned downed or clarified upon.

-grammar edit

>> ^RFlagg:

Attitudes like this is perhaps part of the reason the US is down at number 20 in the Press Freedom Index... but I agree, we need more context, what did she say after that and how did the crowd react to it. If this is more or less the full context...then wow, she may be worse than I thought, and I thought she was pretty bad.


Since it's from Media Matters I would think the context would give you the same impression. They almost never fuck-up (especially when it comes down to evaporating a long comment into it's distilled meaning), when they do fuck-up it's a "look-up" fact that is wrong.

Anyway, I think Ann Coulter is best described as being Ayn Rand's and Dick Cheney's love child with Marilyn Manson's makeup people. Every-time I see her talk(s), it eventually feels like I'm looking at the event horizon for a black hole.

Dick Cheney: The Bieber of conservatives?

Holy shit, this video is frightening

I just do not understand why anyone would defend these extended magazines. They have nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with killing people wholesale.

This black and white thinking is stupid, dangerous and leads to bad laws and bad public policy.

DICK CHENEY thinks these things should be outlawed. My father, who owns 25 guns, rifles and shotguns, who I have NEVER heard say one thing about restricting any firearms, was shocked that these magazines were available and thinks they should be restricted.

Why is there any discussion about this at all?

Stupid stupid stupid. Brain dead. Ignorant. I don't have enough words.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^ghark:
It's amazing how little power people have against these bastards. I think it will take a change in the way you elect your Government before any real changes happen.

The only way change will happen is civil unrest. People making trouble, not these text book love ins the hippies have. Blow some shit up, make them notice !@!! hOOOOOOOOOO AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ! guns beer and ammo !


Yea the thing that gets me is how smart these people like Dick Cheney are, they get laws changed in advance so they can't suffer any consequences, if something big does happen - civil unrest etc, the thing that will need to be fixed is all these laws protecting these guys.

it was dick cheney

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^Those small timers could learn a lot from Mr. Cheney.


Cement oil plugs, going 2 for 1 sale!

>> ^blankfist:

Your vote for Nader was very important for a number of reasons.

Indeed:

1. Iraq War
   
2. Torture
   
3. Guantanamo
   
4. PATRIOT Act
   
5. Warrantless Wiretapping
   
6. John Roberts
   
7. Samuel Alito
   
8. Dick Cheney
   

Had 100% of the Nader voters been able to switch their votes to Gore when it turned out Nader didn't have the votes to win, we would've had President Gore.

That's why people should support electoral reform, so they can do stuff like that and make it so voting on principle doesn't empower people whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to their own.

Nobody dare shed a tear for that lying, murderous, rat-bastard Dick Cheney.

This is more of an indictment against Cheney and less the republican party though. Wide sweeping generalizations are always wrong...errr...ya!

>> ^volumptuous:

I normally agree, but we are talking about direct causality here. This spill, and the Iraq invasion are both direct results of oil/energy companies colluding directly and personally with Dick Cheney in 2000 & 2001.
There's a major difference between accepting lobbyist donations, and colluding to wreak havoc on the planet and its humans.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney_Energy_Task_Force
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/
11/15/AR2005111501842.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/dick-cheney-bp-spill

>> ^NobleOne:

>> ^volumptuous:
Fucking scumbags.
If you vote GOP, you should either STFU for the next decade, or drink a glass of oil for every time Sarah Palin has said drill-baby-drill.

Get over the two sides story that shit is dead, both sides take oil money and it is a fact. The two side is only there for you to bicker about how your side is removed from all evil; when in actuality it is just there to separate you from others. Divide and conquer. If we continue to play this game they (corporations) will win.


I normally agree, but we are talking about direct causality here. This spill, and the Iraq invasion are both direct results of oil/energy companies colluding directly and personally with Dick Cheney in 2000 & 2001.

There's a major difference between accepting lobbyist donations, and colluding to wreak havoc on the planet and its humans.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney_Energy_Task_Force
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/dick-cheney-bp-spill

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Dick Cheney: "Torture Works". Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.