xpyrate

uuhhh .. taking THIS test doesn't count as a real IQ test

i know right? fuckin bastards ... i put a better article in current events fyi

Scamming the Media, Parlock Style By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective Friday 17 September 2004 Meet Phil Parlock. Parlock is a family man and a staunch Republican. Parlock has a very sad story to tell about how rotten Kerry supporters are. You see, they made his little girl cry. Parlock, his weeping daughter, and the fiendish union guy holding a piece of the allegedly ripped sign. Parlock was at a rally on Thursday to greet Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards, who was on a swing through West Virginia and Ohio. Parlock brought his three children and a Bush/Cheney sign to show support for his beloved President. According to him, a Kerry-supporting union guy wearing an IUPAT shirt ripped up the Bush sign his little girl was carrying, making her cry. Terrible, right? A sign that our national politics have descended into these kind of brutish tactics, right? An embarrassing incident for the Kerry campaign, right? The media certainly thinks so, and has dutifully reported on the incident. For the third time. A report from the Charleston Daily Mail, August 27, 1996: "The Huntington man said he was knocked to the ground by a Clinton supporter when he tried to display a sign that read 'Remember Vince Foster,' the deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in a Washington, D.C., park. His death has become the subject of much debate among Clinton opponents...Parlock said some of the crowd tried to make other anti-Clinton demonstrators feel unwelcome. He estimated that about 150 Dole supporters attended the rally, but their signs couldn't be seen for most of the rally." A report from the Charleston Daily Mail, October 28, 2000: "Phil Parlock didn't expect to need all 12 of the Bush-Cheney signs he and his son Louis smuggled in their socks and pockets into the rally for Vice President Al Gore. But each time they raised a sign, someone would grab it out of their hands, the two Huntington residents said. And sometimes it got physical. 'I expected some people to take our signs,' said Louis, 12. 'But I did not expect people to practically attack us.' The two said they didn't go to the Friday morning rally to start trouble." For the third Presidential election in a row, poor Phil Parlock has been abused by terrible Democrats while trying to support the Republican candidate, and while trying to introduce his children to the art of retail politics. Is this just a string of bad luck for Phil? I doubt it. It seems a great deal more certain that Mr. Parlock is a serial disruptor who has managed to convince the easily-duped mainstream media on three separate occasions that he was attacked by Democrats. Only a truly hard-core fanatic would pull a stunt like this, and Parlock certainly appears to fit the bill. Note the fact that he was holding a "Remember Vince Foster" sign at the first incident in 1996. Parlock, it seems, is of that particular fringe school of thought which believes Hillary Clinton had Foster whacked as a part of her grandiose evil scheming. Believers in this particular conspiracy theory are not known for their balanced view of American politics. They see the Clinton family as a pack of remorseless murderers, and therefore feel compelled to do whatever they can to thwart them. Take a look at the sprightly Parlock family, posing beside a giant military vehicle: Take a long look at the young man in the gray shirt, and then take another look at the alleged union guy who tore up the sign. Am I the only one who sees a striking resemblance? It appears we have a clever fellow here who has convinced the same Charleston newspaper three different times that he was victimized by Democrats at rallies. He does not seem to have any problem with involving his own children in the game, and may have even gone so far as to have one of his sons play the role of 'Democrat Attacker.' This would be funny, in a sad sort of way, but for two things. First, this is how campaigns get mired in utterly mindless trivialities. Instead of discussing the upswell of catastrophic violence in Iraq, we get to hear about poor Phil and his crying daughter. There are important matters to discuss, matters central to the future of the country, but media tricks like this blow the whole show off-track. That's bad. The second reason this isn't so funny happened two weeks ago. A gathering of Republicans at the local GOP headquarters got a nasty scare when someone fired a bullet at the building. About two dozen people were there to watch the Republican Convention in New York when a single shot hit the window. Dee Delancy of WCHS news in Charleston reported on the incident, and interviewed several people who were there. One of them was Phil Parlock, who said, "I think this is definitely, definitely an act that was by an extremist kind of thing." Parlock was there. This could all be a series of strange coincidences. Parlock could simply be an unlucky guy who always seems to be around when Democrats do something wretched, who took abuse in 1996, 2000 and 2004 for supporting Republicans, who happened to have the same newspaper on hand to report his story each time, and who also happened to be on the scene of a shooting incident that made Democrats look like frightening would-be assassins. This could be a series of coincidences, but someone should take a long look at this fellow regardless. Manufacturing a few sign-ripping incidents isn't a terribly big deal. But he appears to be hell-bent on making Democrats look like thugs, and there has been a shooting incident involving him on top of everything else. The media, which may well have been repeatedly scammed by Parlock, might want to do some further checking. Author's note: The manner in which this story came to light is a lesson in modern journalism. The mainstream fellows simply reported the Parlock perspective, but it was an intrepid band of online newshounds - bloggers Rising Hegemon and Atrios, who picked up on the work of one Rezmutt, member of the forums at DemocraticUnderground.com - who pieced together the strange coincidences surrounding these Parlock incidents. Once upon a time, stories like this would get missed. The internet has created a whole new phenomenon. If the mainstream media wants to avoid being embarrassed, they might want to think about paying attention to this brave new world of investigative journalism. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091804X.shtml

i know thinking about it ... it seems far worse than the patriot act ... i mean *ahem* the patriot act is a wonderful thing I luv big brother

im not sure id consider this nonsense

go ahead ... by all means spread it as far as you can

ok ... im not sure if you people understand what this is ... or you're severely upset ... so .. ill explain to the best of my ability ... trusted computing is a group of corporations consisting of microsoft, intel, AMD, and other software and hardware manufacturers ... together with the RIAA they are developing a chip called the "fritz" chip ... which essentially monitors your system for mp3s emails word documents, etc that it deems you are not authorized to view, play, use , etc ... there are many angles to which they are going at this whole "policeware" deal .. there is an act being made in congress called the "Induce Act" which will force EVERYONE to upgrade their computer to contain this "fritz" chip .. so if this act is passed in a year or two you will no longer be able to surf the internet without buying a new computer which contains the "fritz" chip even if you do not have mp3s or partake in any file sharing at all ... you will still be affected because emails will have a life of 2 weeks then will be deleted by the fritz chip ... not only that if you use microsoft word each document will be encrypted and the gov't can monitor what you write ... this will have more affect on professional journalists but they could in effect delete your microsoft word files if they dont like what you wrote sucks dont it? there is more than just that ... you will have to read the entire article and the links to fully know what it does but i can't concievably understand how anyone in their right mind or wrong mind for that matter be OK with this i would really like to organize or partake in a boycott of this rediculousness ,,, but it only takes the ignorance and apathy of a few to mess something like that up

[sing]marko is a dorko ... marko is a dorko[/sing] ... remind ya of younger days?

when i was younger i didn't like it ... but then i realized 80% of the people i met have worse names so im happy with it now LOL

bush doesn't need any "bleed heart pinko liberal" to do that, he does that himself

hey they have jack daniels

Palladium is just another word for policeware

Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan they call "trusted computing", large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft's version of this scheme is called "Palladium".) Proprietary programs have included malicious features before, but this plan would make it universal. Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk; a recent "security" upgrade in Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your computer to their clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't have the source code. In the past, these were isolated incidents. "Trusted computing" would make it pervasive. "Treacherous computing" is a more appropriate name, because the plan is designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you. In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit permission. The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These programs will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function. Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous computing for "DRM" (Digital Restrictions Management), so that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.) Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are plans to use the same facility for email and documents--resulting in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be read on the computers in one company. Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink. Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption. Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a chance of developing software to read them--and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself. You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous computing application does, study how painful they are, and decide whether to accept them. It would be short-sighted and foolish to accept, but the point is that the deal you think you are making won't stand still. Once you come depend on using the program, you are hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some applications will automatically download upgrades that will do something different--and they won't give you a choice about whether to upgrade. Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are in charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out, and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free application programs and tools on non-free operating systems; this falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it. Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime. There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming Act) is one of them. But even if they don't legally force you to switch to treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today people often use Word format for communication, although this causes several sorts of problems (see "We Can Put an End to Word Attachments"). If only a treacherous computing machine can read the latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they view the situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a collective choice. For further information about treacherous computing, see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to organize. We need your help! The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge are campaigning against treacherous computing, and so is the FSF-sponsored Digital Speech Project. Please visit these Web sites so you can sign up to support their work. You can also help by writing to the public affairs offices of Intel, IBM, HP/Compaq, or anyone you have bought a computer from, explaining that you don't want to be pressured to buy "trusted" computing systems so you don't want them to produce any. This can bring consumer power to bear. If you do this on your own, please send copies of your letters to the organizations above. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html i think for once that everyone here could agree that this is total BS

they're actually going through with it http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

what is it with DP in this forum

i cant find anything right now ... but i do know i read that some anti-bush groups were being tracked and some were arrested because of this act

it's mainly privacy ... they can read your email without a warrant and put wiretaps up without a warrant, search your personal records without any justification ... things like that mainly ... i do not have anything to hide but i prefer my email and telephone conversations to be private and i am not worried that they are going to put up some surveillance sting at my house, it's just the only thing they have ever used this for is to arrest anti-bush protestors ... and that is breaking our first amendment rights you can read this for more info: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207 stop stealing my lines see you're supposed to tell me to go back to reading dr. suess than *my* line is suppose to be something like you should goto clown school for some new matierial:aright:

OMFG!!! LMFAO!!! that's better than "you're not gonna fool us again" and ditto on the

i dont get how anyone can support this act. all it does is give the gov't more rights to breech our freedoms and does nothing to curb any terrorist activity what-so-ever. I must reiterate the fact that we could have prevented 911 if we had enforced the laws that were on the books before 911. so what good is making more laws such as the patriot act which have only been used to attempt to incriminate lawful protestors and the like? i would love to see the day when and if kerry gets elected and he throws a bunch of pro-bush protestors in jail using the patriot act ... that would make for a good laugh

is ohio really that major of a factor in this years election?

nazi fascist hitler wannabe:punch:

you could've just as easily said that about the appointed president

stupid dp shit

Thousands Make Silent Statement Against Administration's Job Policies http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16746 On September 1, nearly 8,000 people formed a three-mile long symbolic unemployment line through the heart of New York City, drawing the nation’s attention to failed economic policies that have left 8.2 million Americans unemployed. Organized by People For the American Way’s New York office in cooperation with the Imagine Festival of Arts, Issues and Ideas, and the New York State AFL, The Unemployment Line stretched from Wall Street, the nation’s economic centerpiece, to Madison Square Garden, site of the Republican National Convention. From precisely 8:13 a.m. to 8:31 a.m. thousands of pink slip-waving participants created a single, silent line along Broadway, the city’s oldest and most celebrated street. The Unemployment Line puts a human face on the worst jobs economy since the Great Depression, with each participant representing over 1,000 unemployed Americans. The 8.1 million Americans currently looking for work could stand shoulder-to-shoulder and form a line from Crawford, TX all the way to the White House and back. The Unemployment Line consisted of thousands of individuals from as far away as Alaska and California, as well as members of 18 different labor, social service, and faith-based organizations, many of which adopted blocks of their own. It was sanctioned by the New York Police Department and was entirely peaceful. “President Bush promised America that he would add 5.5 million jobs to our economy by the end of this year,†said Deni Frand, executive director of People For the American Way’s New York office. “Instead, millions of jobs have been lost, and millions of Americans have been feeling real pain because of his policies.†"'The Line' is a poignant reminder that all over America, men and women are without the kind of jobs that support families and build communities," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way. "On September 1st, thousands of people raised their voices in New York City and asked on behalf of the millions of the nation's unemployed, 'President Bush, why haven't you put us to work?'" In the Wall Street area, traders joined the line, and in a mid-town park police officers did the same. Participants standing in the line were greeted with cheers and thumbs-up from pedestrians and honks from passing cars and trucks. As the 18 minute-long event concluded, a roar of applause traveled up and down the line. The actual pink slips themselves are now appearing all over Manhattan: on car dashboards, in store windows and even taped to a hot dog cart.

that was kind of my point ... where was bush on 911? hiding away like a little scared sissy boy that's where ... at least guiliani was at the fore-front ... and we should expect that much from our leaders but in todays world we dont have the kind of ballsy leadership we used to have take TR for example the guy got shot by an anarchist on the way to one of speeches and he still went on and made his speech ... and only after he finished did he goto the hospital ... that is leadership ... something that is totally and completely absent and non-existant in the white house today