ForumsWEPRThe Anonymous Hack

72 7346
Mickeyryn
offline
Mickeyryn
278 posts
1,870

So, I just saw a video on AOL about this group of hackers who have a WMD they are ready to send out as Operation Last Resort, which is, their Last Resort. They believe that certain forms of the FBI and the Feds are not letting regular U.S. citizens their proper rights, and I totally agree. Not about using the WMD as their "Last Resort", but the Feds have too much power, and they are using their power against the people in an unfair way, and the Feds. are supposed to help us, and make our country a totally better place. Watch this video. It is very informative, and let me know what you guys think about Anonymous and his "plan".

  • 72 Replies
Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

Since socialism is so cool, tell me, what do you find wrong with this?

The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful state, strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy.[9] The Libertarian Party has also supported the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar trade agreements, as well as the United States' exit from the United Nations, WTO, and NATO.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

Why would you abolish private schools, when many of them are religious, and kid's parents want them to be religious.


Because they're hurting education for the majority and religion can be taught in public school.

Competition wouldn't only help healthcare but all businesses. Just like it used to be. A free market. We just need a few regulations in place to keep out monopolies and robber barons.


Yeah because heal insurrance companies are a godsend...

And you're right, what is an issue is the TSA raping women, by searching them. Oh and if you're linked to a terrorist, are a terrorists, or are suspected of being one or being linked to one. You're sent off, until they let you go, no trial, no due process. Oh and they can execute you to, no trial. No questions asked


In that paragraph alone you used sarcasm, hyperbole, false information, and a smidge of truth. Congrats!

Several countries don't have taxes at all, we could get on without them, I'm not suggesting getting rid of them, only income tax though.


Name one country that doesn't tax its citizens. And why are you against income tax? Yes, it's annoying, however it is somewhat necessary. Without it you would need to tax other things a lot more. The money HAS to come from somewhere.

I want a strong small government. One that has nothing to do with me unless someone invades/attacks my country. Everything else is left to states to handle, or below them.


You have never stated WHY you want this. Simply saying "the government has too much power" really isn't a reason.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

The Libertarian Party has also supported the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar trade agreements, as well as the United States' exit from the United Nations, WTO, and NATO.


Well this is a big issue. The U.S.A exiting from the international community is something that should not happen. While I dislike America's foreign policy I do realize that it must to some extent play a role in international affairs.

Furthermore, the Libertarian stance said nothing on education or healthcare. While it sounds good on paper I just can't see it working. I dislike the idea of a world where those with little are disadvantaged simply because they have little. I believe in equal oppourtunity for all, and that requires a strong government. A government with the ability to balance the scales.
Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

Well. I don't know how I can say it any better. I have said several times, I don't want income tax, I don't want the government in education, or healthcare, or anything like that. Why? Because when they did enter it, things got worse. All those Alphabet Agencies FDR created were supposed to expire as an example, Social Security, sure it helped back then, but keeping it has hurt us a lot.

There was no sarcasm. Women have reported the TSA abusing them. You can be detained indefinitely, or killed, without question. It happened to a US citizen, though he was Islamic of origin. He turned out to be innocent IIRC.


You ask why? But why wouldn't anyone want a small government and everything works out well. Our government was small, then monopolies and robber barons come into play, instead of putting up laws and regulations they overblow it, when the depression happens, FDR is pretty effective, though most of those, even social security should have died, like they were supposed to. And the regulations need to be cut down to like before.

We get attacked by terrorist, then the government is like well, we need to spy on all of our citizens, taking away their citizenship is a good idea too. Don't worry, it's just to protect you from terrorist, you can't make it without us.

That is an example of a government having way more power than they should.

WHY do I want it? A lot of things that shouldn't be here, won't be here. Some things will turn back to normal. Pre-FDR, etc... At least this platform has ideas. I don't know if you support Republicans or Democrats, but all they argue over is who's going to spend more money on the army and medicare, when both should be cut down drastically in spending. The army spending is just ridiculous, but what do you except when you're the earth police?

Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

http://www.lp.org/issues/healthcare


And here's what most would say on Education.

Education is primarily the responsibility of parents. Parental control of education is the best way to ensure that children will receive an education tailored to their unique skills and abilities -- after all, every child is different, thus one-size-fits-all federal programs must be resisted. Furthermore, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over education. Therefore, all federal education programs should be shut down and control of education restored to parents.

And I agree, if a kid later on in life wants to be an auto-mechanic, after some reading, writing, math, etc.. they shouldn't be forced to take higher classes like Algebra, Trig, Calculus, English 4, etc... They should take auto-mechanics because they want to be a mechanic.

Even colleges... You want to be a scientists, yet you have to take history? So pointless and such a waste of time, you should take what you need. I want to go into Web Design/Computer Science, what should I have to take to get a degree? The programming courses, the HTML, the PHP, the flash, the javascript, all that, but is U.S. History really gonna help me learn to program? No.

SeaTurtle
offline
SeaTurtle
116 posts
145

I agree with the Libertarian party on most area's and I totally agree that the government has way overstepped it's bounds and has been doing so since WW1 era. We are now at a breaking point. The thing that worries me is that I don't see the government ever relinquishing the power it has in favour of more democratic rule. Violent revolution sounds insane, and I don't believe Americans could handle it. I don't know how or if change is ever gonna come.

Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

Of course we could handle it, there won't be one though. God I hope you aren't a NWO conspiracy theorist.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

Education is primarily the responsibility of parents. Parental control of education is the best way to ensure that children will receive an education tailored to their unique skills and abilities -- after all, every child is different, thus one-size-fits-all federal programs must be resisted. Furthermore, the United States Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over education. Therefore, all federal education programs should be shut down and control of education restored to parents.


Absolutely not. This leads to a conflict of interests in regards to what the parents want their child to do with their lives, furthermore parents are not always qualified to teach, no would they have the assets to do so.

Now if you mean the parents are responsible for enrolling their child in a local school with qualified personel then that is a different matter altogether.

Even colleges... You want to be a scientists, yet you have to take history? So pointless and such a waste of time, you should take what you need.


As someone studying history I had to take an elective in science. I took astronomy because I am actually interested in it. There is nothing wrong with a well rounded education. Besides, it's one course for one year. It really isn't that much of a demand.

Of course we could handle it, there won't be one though.


Don't be delluded.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

So, do you want parts of socialism, or a complete socialist government?


Honestly I don't mind. It's far better than a society where inequality is getting all the more entrenched. Proto socialist policies such as more even distribution of taxation will certainly help the poor and middle class, the bulk of society.

Forcing people to give away their money? Sounds like a very free country....


For the benefit of the rest of society? Yes.

How were they hypocrites? And why not glamorize it when it's infinitely better than where we are now.


Slavery. The fact that the vote was only extended to a tiny part of society. Or that rights were mostly limited to white males.
Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

Yes, they would be enrolled in whatever school the parent chooses, the thing is the parents would choose what they take, they wouldn't be forced to take mandated course set by the government. I would take astronomy too, I love science. But my point mainly is, we need to teach people skills to get jobs in those skills. And IMO it would be great if there were place where we could teach skills, that would allow them to get jobs with that skill or skills, instead of learning that skill along with tons of extra, needed stuff.

Don't be deluded? I'm sure we could handle one, provided we still have our weapons. And I don't think there will be one. Why would we?

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

they wouldn't be forced to take mandated course set by the government. I would take astronomy too, I love science. But my point mainly is, we need to teach people skills to get jobs in those skills. And IMO it would be great if there were place where we could teach skills, that would allow them to get jobs with that skill or skills, instead of learning that skill along with tons of extra, needed stuff.


Studies show that people who know more than simply a narrow focus set of skills do better with life. Yes, it seems logical to train yourself for one job only for your entire life, but society isn't that rigid. Also, what if you change your mind? Then you still have skills from another discipline, so it would make your system moot. It is better for people fo focus one what they want when they are mature enough to decide for themselves. Hence university, trade school and college.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

Yes, it would be somewhat taking away their freedom, but on reproducing for example, why would you want a severely autistic person to create another severely autistic person? It makes no sense. I wouldn't consider myself right-wing. I follow classical liberalism. Free Market, freedom, equality, etc...


If you're saying we should take these peoples freedom away then you're not supporting freedom and equality.

And like I said, I mean really mentally ill people. Kids in wheelchairs and can't talk and stuff like that. I guess it's possible they could get a job, somehow maybe, it wouldn't be that good.


Because those who are stuck in wheelchairs and can't talk can't contribute to society if given the chance.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Stephen_Hawking.StarChild.jpg

And by social responsibility, do you mean feeling the need to help everyone? No, not at all. If I was rich I would donate money and give some away, because I'm a nice guy, IMO at least hah. But as I'd have it people would be individualists, they take care of themselves, and can help if they want. Taxes don't need to be abolished, though income taxes do, Taxes need a reform. The Fair Tax seems like a good place to go.


It's fine to be individual and to take care of your self. However there are those who are unable to take care of themselves and require the assistance of others in order to function. There are others still who once had the ability to take care of themselves and no longer can. Doing so is being socially responsible and doing so can allow for these people to not only have a higher quality of life but to possibly contribute as well.

The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism,


While you did list some good points to have the totally hands off self regulating method of Libertarianism simply wouldn't work. In a society you can't just look after your self all the time.

favoring minimally regulated markets,


I don't think the amount of regulation matters as much as the quality of regulation.

Parental control of education is the best way to ensure that children will receive an education tailored to their unique skills and abilities -- after all, every child is different, thus one-size-fits-all federal programs must be resisted.


I have to disagree, there are plenty of idiot parents who won't give proper lessons and would very likely provide flat our wrong information. Having standards for education helps to improve the overall quality.

Yes, they would be enrolled in whatever school the parent chooses, the thing is the parents would choose what they take, they wouldn't be forced to take mandated course set by the government.


A child could easily miss out on fundamental requirements they very well may need later in life doing this. Also waiting later in life could make it all that harder for them to pick up those requirements they needed.
Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

Good point. When it says minimally regulated markets it means getting all the regulations out. It is absolutely ridiculous the amount of regulations there are for say.. Starting a business. But at the same time, we need some regulation to keep potential corrupt business leaders in line.

It's just my opinion. But I do think a small government with a strong national defense and little to no influence in any other area would be good. It's certainly a good step away from this semi-police/surveillance state we're in now. W/e you want to call it.

And yes, obviously Stephen Hawkings is a genius, it's not like I'm saying, oh you're in a wheelchair, stay home. No, I mean truly retarded people that can't take care/do anything for themselves. Allowing them to reproduce would be a crime against humanity IMO. And you know what I'm talking about, these people walk around clueless and act as if they're 6 years old when they're in their teens or older. I'm not making fun of them, just trying to explain what I mean.


Some parents are bad, but like I said, I don't think the government should be involved in education.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,462 posts
1,955

And yes, obviously Stephen Hawkings is a genius, it's not like I'm saying, oh you're in a wheelchair, stay home. No, I mean truly retarded people that can't take care/do anything for themselves. Allowing them to reproduce would be a crime against humanity IMO. And you know what I'm talking about, these people walk around clueless and act as if they're 6 years old when they're in their teens or older. I'm not making fun of them, just trying to explain what I mean.


You're digging a hole here. You're coming off as very biggoted.
Carnage1995
offline
Carnage1995
98 posts
80

So severely mentally ill people should be able to reproduce to make another person suffer until death? I'd rather spare them the pain.

Showing 31-45 of 72