Cloudflare Removes Neo-Nazi Site From DDoS Mitigation Service

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
g-unit1111 said:
Wait - you really think people get paid for this? I've yet to see one paycheck, and most of the liberals I know have yet to see one paycheck. Show me one protestor driving around in a luxury car, living in a high rise apartment and wearing Rolexes off his / her protest money. You can't, can you?

Paid core protesters & well funded orgs, from BLM to AntiFa and plenty I'm neglecting to mention, isn't a theory, its a fact proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Making it seem as if it's impossible, & then downplaying it by pointing out they don't get paid very much defeats your own original assertion that there are no paid protesters. How much they make is irrelevant. While the strategy remains the same, how many people will be paid in a given counter demonstration depends on the estimate of how many it'll take to bring out others out who'll follow suit for free.

Far as Alex J goes, seeing as he represents the flip-side of the controlled opposition coin, I don't doubt your claim about whatever event you mentioned where people were at least some participants may have been paid one bit.

Some interesting links & info to search: https://twitter.com/hashtag/soros?lang=en There are plenty of stories in MSM publications e.g, WaPo for example, which have printed stories e.g. "So what if protesters are paid?" http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/ or http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/31/craigslist-ad-offers-protesters-15-hour-crash-wisconsin-donald-trump-rally https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/ <- another WaPo article about AntiFa, check out the video to see their violent doctrine in action if you wish. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/29/commentary-dont-be-fooled-protests-and-marches-arent-coming-out-of-nowhere/ Depending on area, there are commonly job offers for paid protesters in classified section of various publications & even sites e.g. craigslist.

g-unit1111 said:
I've been to lots of rallies and I've never been paid once. I feel cheated. :lol:

My condolences lol. Kinda reminds me of this debacle that's been goin on a since 2015 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/ (https://twitter.com/hashtag/CutTheCheck?src=hash)

bit_user said:
What's literally the best-case scenario for getting AntiFa broken up? The way I see it, the problems with government being too controlled by elites & special interests is still there.

You mean, "elites, special interests" are too entrenched to allow well funded, violent, anti-American, anti-free speech groups e.g. AntiFa to be broken up? If so, I'd say we're in agreement, & I tried telling you the same thing. There hasn't been a significant, genuine, grassroots protest movement in the US that's been successful or even allowed to take place for some time. When a peaceful protests occurs, & AntiFa or similar affiliates show up to deliberately shut them down by turning them violent, & keep getting way with it, it goes to show those running the show benefit by keeping people divided. Fear & loathing, divide & conquer, among the oldest tricks in their book. Of course, now, & in the near future with technological advancement of AI, quantum computing, etc, it's kind of like unleashing a Pandora's box the result of which is ultimately unpredictable. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/09/minority-report-style-technology-to-predict-crime-in-china/ This equates to using AI for predicting "thought crime", the article mentions that aside from China gearing up, its already in use in the UK (& most likely elsewhere).
 


I guess the world's most powerful puppets that show up @ Builderbergs meetings & share none of what they talk about with non-members, just gather every so often to drink cristal, tell "yo mama jokes", take turns reading soul crushing poems, & not go over what the plans of the agenda/conspiracies their paymasters have in mind until their next scheduled meeting takes place, then? Ditto for Bohemian Grove I suppose?

After all, what are the chances the less than 1% of the wealthiest, most powerful/influential human beings on the planet, obsessed with control, would ever "conspire" to further an agenda, or "conspiracy" that benefits them over all else? That's just crazy talk. :sarcastic:

Edit: I'm aware these issues are mostly moot. For any aware of some of the bigger picture, what can one possibly do to effect positive change for the good of all? A great irony is, despite our being the same (flesh & bone human beings) who, despite social status, nonetheless deserve a say in our fate & that of our species & planet, here, as the rest. Yet, thanks to a thriving, ever more efficient, amoral, despotic plutocracy, our species & planet have been brought to the brink without the informed consent or regard of the current majority, or that of the generations who preceded us. Just fwiw.
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator


You really couldn't have picked a more far right hashtag to prove your point? All I saw on there was the conspiracy theorists. Memes posted by conspiracy theorists do not make for a compelling argument.


You mean, "elites, special interests" are too entrenched to allow well funded, violent, anti-American, anti-free speech groups e.g. AntiFa to be broken up? If so, I'd say we're in agreement, & I tried telling you the same thing. There hasn't been a significant, genuine, grassroots protest movement in the US that's been successful or even allowed to take place for some time. When a peaceful protests occurs, & AntiFa or similar affiliates show up to deliberately shut them down by turning them violent, & keep getting way with it, it goes to show those running the show benefit by keeping people divided. Fear & loathing, divide & conquer, among the oldest tricks in their book. Of course, now, & in the near future with technological advancement of AI, quantum computing, etc, it's kind of like unleashing a Pandora's box the result of which is ultimately unpredictable. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/09/minority-report-style-technology-to-predict-crime-in-china/ This equates to using AI for predicting "thought crime", the article mentions that aside from China gearing up, its already in use in the UK (& most likely elsewhere).

Well the ultra far right groups like the Proud Boys, III%, Oath Keepers, Patriot Prayer, Bundy Militia, etc, are just as interested in suppressing speech as Antifa is. Just in the opposite direction. One side does not get to own free speech, it works for both sides, and any attempts by either side is terrible. You can't say that they don't. Saying the most far out, racist, sexist, homophobic stuff and then saying "Oh it's free speech, we can say this!" not only is counter productive to the argument, it hurts both sides and that doesn't end well for anybody. And these protests are far from peaceful - when you combine the most belligerent, obnoxious people from both ends of the spectrum you get people looking to start fights at protests, and what happened in Charlottesville is just the beginning - things are going to get far worse before they get better for either side.
 
g-unit1111 said:
You really couldn't have picked a more far right hashtag to prove your point? All I saw on there was the conspiracy theorists. Memes posted by conspiracy theorists do not make for a compelling argument.

The point was to provide you with a broad spectrum of info across all media that I could find doing a short (literally within a couple of minutes) search in regards to the behavior of AntiFa. I didn't bother reading every detail. The point was to prove that AntiFa's violent behavior is nothing new, & their being well funded is old news as well. You, choosing one link you deem "far right" (because they dared to bring up paymaster Soros I assume?) & choosing to associate it with me, imho shows you've no interest in facing these issues honestly & would instead rather troll those you disagree with. By that logic, should I assume you watch Infowars on a regular basis & you're a "far right conservative" fan of Mr Jones 'cuz you posted a link about him a few comments back? If you cared about these issues you'd reply in an objective manner & put your dogma away. Instead you choose to hone in on a single hashtag (which you then tried to attach to my character) but utterly ignored the material I provided from ABC News, Washington Post, & other MSM outlets.

Unlike some people, I don't buy into "left-leaning", "right leaning", or any other patently false, deliberately divisive label to characterize myself by. Labels play into the very agenda that's been dividing our people & creating an atmosphere of fear & loathing. Labels disillusion people from participating in the political realm to begin with, & seem to be good only for building up a lot of hate & ignorance in those who do attempt to involve themselves with being informed.

g-unit1111 said:
Well the ultra far right groups like the Proud Boys, III%, Oath Keepers, Patriot Prayer, Bundy Militia, etc, are just as interested in suppressing speech as Antifa is. Just in the opposite direction. One side does not get to own free speech, it works for both sides, and any attempts by either side is terrible. You can't say that they don't. Saying the most far out, racist, sexist, homophobic stuff and then saying "Oh it's free speech, we can say this!" not only is counter productive to the argument, it hurts both sides and that doesn't end well for anybody. And these protests are far from peaceful - when you combine the most belligerent, obnoxious people from both ends of the spectrum you get people looking to start fights at protests, and what happened in Charlottesville is just the beginning - things are going to get far worse before they get better for either side.

Aside from that incident with the Bundies, I'm unfamiliar with those groups, & iirc, at least one of them is nothing more than a YT channel. If what I saw from them is any indication whatsoever in regards to the rest, they didn't seem very interested in suppressing any free speech whatsoever, just the opposite. While I don't approve of their methods & in how they chose to handle the Federeal Govt screwing them out of their land & going out of their way to screw them, generally speaking. What I can for sure say is all in all the situation was resolved peacefully for the most part, aside from that guy the feds gunned down after he'd said he was willing to die for his beliefs (also unnecessary). Just as the unnecessary violence by the FBI @ Waco, Ruby Ridge, & the plethora of other lethal, disgusting incidents could've been avoided.

Moving forward: I can indeed "say they don't". I've never heard of any of the groups you mentioned showing up at a demonstration to deliberately silence protesters they disagree by using violence, intimidation or any other means for that matter, as AntiFA has done many times in the US & other nations (& continues to do). I've never heard of, or seen any other well funded group who make it plainly known they're against free speech, against the U.S. Constitution & any who support it, & make good on their promise to use violence & intimidation to shut down any demonstration their wealthy backers send them to in order to prevent peaceful demonstrations from being able to take place at all. That's multi-level criminal behavior which violates Constitutional Law. Yet, not surprisingly, they keep getting away with it.

I disagree re Charlottesville; that it's only the beginning, or that things must get far worse before getting any better. I'd hope there aren't as many zombies out there keen to play into the agenda planned for them while the PTB were busy dividing, distracting, & dumbing down the majority (to come to our "rescue" after the very problems they've created have plaid themselves out). Thanks to them Orwell's vision has come true, & we all allowed it to. Remember when Cheney actually went on the MSM not long ago & asked for at least 30 years of continuous warfare? I'd like to think the majority is capable of being smarter than they've been given credit for, that eventually they'll see Charlotteseville & the rest for the sham they were/are, regardless of generation, creed, beliefs, etc.
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator


I checked that hashtag again - all it had was ultra far right memes and links to petitions trying to declare George Soros a terrorist (he isn't) and Antifa a terrorist group (they aren't). What's out there now is a huge combination of fake news and propaganda. And both sides are guilty of it, but the fake news leans more toward the right trying to spread false narratives about the left.

Unlike some people, I don't buy into "left-leaning", "right leaning", or any other patently false, deliberately divisive label to characterize myself by. Labels play into the very agenda that's been dividing our people & creating an atmosphere of fear & loathing. Labels disillusion people from participating in the political realm to begin with, & seem to be good only for building up a lot of hate & ignorance in those who do attempt to involve themselves with being informed.

You posted links to Fox News - apparently you do. Fox News is about as ultra far right as it gets and the closest thing we have to state run television. Trump tweets Fox & Friends and Sean Hannity directly.

Aside from that incident with the Bundies, I'm unfamiliar with those groups, & iirc, at least one of them is nothing more than a YT channel. If what I saw from them is any indication whatsoever in regards to the rest, they didn't seem very interested in suppressing any free speech whatsoever, just the opposite. While I don't approve of their methods & in how they chose to handle the Federeal Govt screwing them out of their land & going out of their way to screw them, generally speaking. What I can for sure say is all in all the situation was resolved peacefully for the most part, aside from that guy the feds gunned down after he'd said he was willing to die for his beliefs (also unnecessary). Just as the unnecessary violence by the FBI @ Waco, Ruby Ridge, & the plethora of other lethal, disgusting incidents could've been avoided.

Proud Boys: https://rewire.news/article/2017/08/28/hate-goes-mainstream-gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys/
Oath Keepers: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/there-was-another-right-wing-terrorist-incident-this-weekend/
III%: https://nondoc.com/2017/08/15/bomb-plot-suspect-linked-iii/

These groups have the same mentality as Antifa that you're going out of your way to try to discredit. Right wing terrorism is a huge problem that is not being addressed. If you go to rallies with the intent of beating people up and destroying property, that's borderline terrorism no matter which side you are on.

Moving forward: I can indeed "say they don't". I've never heard of any of the groups you mentioned showing up at a demonstration to deliberately silence protesters they disagree by using violence, intimidation or any other means for that matter, as AntiFA has done many times in the US & other nations (& continues to do). I've never heard of, or seen any other well funded group who make it plainly known they're against free speech, against the U.S. Constitution & any who support it, & make good on their promise to use violence & intimidation to shut down any demonstration their wealthy backers send them to in order to prevent peaceful demonstrations from being able to take place at all. That's multi-level criminal behavior which violates Constitutional Law. Yet, not surprisingly, they keep getting away with it.

Except they're not. And you can't tell me that you can say the most hateful, bigoted, homophobic, racist and sexist crap, and then try to play the innocent "Oh it's free speech, we can say this!". Which is true - under our Constitution, you have the right to say this stuff. But should you? And when did it become the norm to love Hitler and spout hate speech? The thing is the ultra far right is playing an extremely dangerous game with free speech right now, especially when they accuse the other side of being against it, and if it ever goes to court, they'll lose, and that won't be good for anybody involved. Playing the free speech card while spouting hate speech is counter productive to the argument.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador

It's like you're ignoring that we live in a country of laws. It's up to local law enforcement to prevent, stop, and prosecute violence. If yours aren't doing that, then elect a new police chief, mayor, governor, etc. If they're not protecting others' right to speak and assemble freely, then you might also have a case for a civil lawsuit.

You're just making a lot of noise about something that, if it were a real problem, wouldn't be all that hard to fix. I get that you don't like left-wing extremists and protesters, but pretending they're some kind of existential threat is just nonsense.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador

In any good conspiracy theory, there's always a grain of truth. Sure, some billionaires get together and they might talk about solving the world's problems or they might talk about partnerships or whom to fund in the next election. But any good student of human nature will tell you that these people are probably more competitive, opinionated, and greedy than the average person. So I just don't buy the idea they'd secretly all collude without any schisms in their ranks, or that they even could exercise that much control over nation states as the NWO adherents would have you believe. But, as they say, you can't prove a negative. So, no one will ever succeed in proving they're not secretly ruling the world.

The most dangerous corruption is right out in the open. Wealthy elites and multinational businesses funding politicians (or threatening primary challenges against them) who then write tax cuts and loopholes into countless laws. This leads to one of the two things that blew up the Greek economy, which is that almost nobody paid any taxes. And let's not forget the regulation-slashing they pursue, so they can trash the air, water, and land that rightfully belong to the people who need to breathe, drink, and live on it.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador

What is your beef with George Soros? The way you're alleging his involvement with things as somehow proving their evil and corrupt nature would suggest he's Lucifer incarnate. But he's just not. Sure, he made money in currency speculation, which doesn't seem terribly productive. Other than that, he's done a lot for democracy promotion in former Soviet states (without generally trying to tip the scales by backing specific candidates) and, being a concentration camp survivor, I'd bet he's done a lot to combat neo-nazis.

Is there really anything not to like about him other than being "tainted" by the financial shell game, anti-nazi, and generally well-liked on the left?


First, what's abcnews.com.co?

Secondly, even if someone claims to be a paid anti-Trump protestor or that you see an ad offering to pay protestors, why do you assume these are genuine?

Third, a handful of news stories doesn't prove a trend. You're falling prey to the same phenomenon as BLM, where a handful of tragic events is painted into some huge trend (not to say that police-involved shootings aren't a problem - just not a trend).
 


Ya, I'm glad you think it's so funny. As if if you never fell for a false link. The point is, I provided plenty of links on the issue of paid AntiFa protesters who often know absolutely nothing about what they're protesting about, yet, all the same are hyper-violent, & have suppressed free speech & dissent by counter-demonstrating in the US, EU, & elsewhere on certain ideas Mr Soros et. al wish to see shut down. You've ignored the topic altogether & instead taken cheap shots like the one above & in other replies. So rather than acknowledge the obvious, you'd rather distastefully nitpick at 2 links out of many, & derail the conversation. Bravo, sir, give yourself a pat on the back...

You even up-voted your pal twice in the comments he posted before your own which I'm replying to now. You know, please, don't bother fixing it, really no need, but I now really have to wonder in regards to your credibility as a mod & in general. Is this something that's done regularly around here by you, or maybe just a glitch able to be taken advantage of? Just sayin, finding a way to deliberately upvote twice (if that is indeed the case?) on a topic that should've come to an end long ago but hasn't because the idea of anyone but you having the last word is just unacceptable, just seems kind of desperate, over-zealous, & pitiful to me, is all...

And don't single out FOX, those who own the MSM networks are RL good friends. They attend the same clubs, their children attend one another's birthday parties, etc. They've far more in common with one another than they do with you, me, or the saps they'd say they create their "news" for. The left-right divide is well in control by the owners of all MSM networks. My guess is you know that much but it just grinds your gears there are people out there who no longer fall for it. Which makes me wonder why I'm even bothering to reply to anything you have to say. Btw, I didn't bother checking out those 3 links you suggested, not because I don't care, but because they're not well funded orgs (like AntiFa) hiring actors to show up at demonstrations to suppress dissent, free speech, basic rights, with violence & intimidation. They aren't the ones openly against the US Constitution & funded by billionaires like George Soros via his network of NGO's & affiliates with an end goal to shut down debate or discourse on any idea deemed inappropriate. Those groups you mentioned are more or less innocuous & hardly any pay attention to anything they have to say, which is the way it'd remain if not for those who seek to impose their ideas unto others, get paid to actually do so, & end up violating our Constitutional Rights in doing so.

Is an Orwellian future your ideal? If not, I'd check your perceived privilege to shut down free speech from others, because that is precisely the recipe for a police state which you seem to be promoting if I read your words right. And again, hope it's all worth it for you, please feel free to share how worth it if you wish. lol

bit_user said:
The most dangerous corruption is right out in the open. Wealthy elites and multinational businesses funding politicians (or threatening primary challenges against them) who then write tax cuts and loopholes into countless laws. This leads to one of the two things that blew up the Greek economy, which is that almost nobody paid any taxes. And let's not forget the regulation-slashing they pursue, so they can trash the air, water, and land that rightfully belong to the people who need to breathe, drink, and live on it.

Let's stick to one topic at a time here, and rather than regurgitate any info about any economic "crisis" you know about, like those who only promote the exact same narrative of the MSM, remember some of us actually know a thing or two underlying the situations & stories they shamelessly parrot one another about. If you're unable to maintain genuine discourse about the topic of why groups like AntiFa are wrong & un-American, then I doubt I'd want to waste my time discussing what you perceive to be "the facts" about any economic crisis. But, just a word of advice, before concerning yourself with economic problems in other nations, maybe it'd be a better idea to stick to the ones we face here in the US first...

bit_user said:
What is your beef with George Soros?

I believe I've already answered that question several times. Whatever Mr Soros' past, that doesn't give him the right to RUIN economies via speculation, promote color revolutions around the world, pledge $Billions to Ukraine for weapons & other "necessities" to keep that manufactured conflict raging over there. Nor does it give him the right to use similarly, utterly wicked, underhanded practices he's engaged in with other nations around the world, which he seems to consider business as usual.

Btw, regarding what you said about the "left" (or "right", for that matter) about Mr Soros, I'd wager most of the "left", or rather the self entitled, whiny snowflake "my way or the highway (fascistic) approach" you seem so keen to promote, remain clueless about him, same with the so called "right". Politicians, otoh, e.g. Mrs Clinton, along with some other democrats in general as well as republicans (again, very little difference between the two, same as any MSM network), may certainly know about him & have worked with him extensively. But then she & her husband maintain some rather strange bedfellows when it comes to politics. That Foundation of theirs. How it's been used & abused. Her pal Huma, the Podesta bros, Ms Abramovic, etc and so on, have plenty of disgusting idiosyncrasies no politician in their right mind would want to associate themselves with. Just. Saying. =P

Anyhow, back to Soros & his pals. Whatever his or their background, whatever his/their privilege, wealth, friends in high places, none of it gives him/them the right to pay organizations like AntiFa to hire protesters who pretend to be communists, anarchists, or what have you, clearly state they're against free speech & the US Constitution, & promise to disrupt any peaceful demonstrations with counter-demonstrations using violence & intimidation their paymasters wish to see put down. Which they continually do (at least 2 other incidents took place between the time this article was posted & now in which AntiFa were used to shut down dissent, debate, & free speech on ideas successfully) & which they keep getting away with. If that isn't the definition of a TYRANT abusing his wealth, loopholes in the law, & status, I wouldn't know what is. In regards to free speech you & some others would love to see outlawed: actually, as you yourself stated, YES in America people DO have the right to say what they please as long as it adheres to the First Amendment & Constitutional Law. You say it's a matter for law enforcement, etc. You give an answer which, while technically true, isn't really relative to the issue because the system has fractured to the point standards & morals have all but disappeared.

And by the way, I'd have thought an intelligent person as yourself would have no doubt that, in a healthy society, there can be NO suppression of free speech. No suppression or outlawing of debate on any non-violent idea. Only those who wish to hide information from others & have the immorality & power to do so would shut down honest debate & discourse on any idea. I would've thought you'd agree with that. I'm sorry for you that can't at least agree to that much.

Because then, rather than promote division & violence among the populace the way your vaunted Mr Soros & his pals have, people would be free to discuss things as they please & hold their own opinions without any group being paid or otherwise manipulated to suppress & shut down ideas & free speech just because their bosses disagree. People would come to see these ideas & those for or against them for who & what they really are. The MSM wouldn't be able to sensationalize them, use them to further divide the people of this or any other nation, & agitators who want to see this beloved country torn apart would stand no chance of succeeding.

If you're unable to see the error of their ways, I'd suggest you give the US Constitution a read & see why you're in the wrong. That suppressing free speech equates to taking peoples' fundamental freedoms & liberties away from them. If that's what you truly believe, then we truly have nothing more to talk about. Suppressing free speech, dissent, & ideas by abusing one's wealth, social status, position, & working with like minded friends in high places equates to treason, & is part of what lies at the very root of any unhealthy divided, conquered nation & its people. Like your pal & so many others, you seem, regardless whether you're aware of it or not, bent on seeing an already Orwellian present grow yet worse in the future. Again: thanks, but no thanks.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador

Oh, you barely scratched the surface. Most of your links are worthless, as they don't really prove anything. It's true that the protest in Berkeley was shameful, but you really can't extrapolate from that one event to say anything meaningful about such a large group of people.


I agree that a mod shouldn't intentionally do that, and should fix it when it does happen.


I think my point was a valid clarification of my views and I felt it was warranted in order to highlight what I'm actually concerned about vs. the way you imagine elites are using their influence in harmful ways.


First, have you checked the subject of this thread? We're already off-topic with AntiFa. I actually wasn't trying to change the subject, but add a clarification as mentioned.

Second, I've said what I think needs saying about them. Clearly, no minds are being changed, here. I just hope the combination of your self-righteousness and demonization of others doesn't lead to yet more violence or criminality. You talk about the U.S. Constitution, so let's remember that all citizens have the same basic rights, including innocence until proven guilty and a fair trial. Nobody should be taking the law into their own hands, either through violence, intimidation, or DDOS attacks.


I think it was clear that my concern wasn't for Greece, but for the same thing happening in the US. When people aren't paying their taxes and the government keeps spending borrowed money, that's what can happen. Now, they're deeper in debt than they can ever pay back. And, as we've seen with Argentina, a country can't actually declare bankruptcy.


I don't see any damning evidence, but thanks for clarifying your position.


That's quite a house of cards. So, if any of those claims isn't quite as you've stated it, your case pretty much falls apart, right there.

BTW, people do have a right to fund NGOs. I guess you're referring to the moral right? What about donors to PACs? Do they have a legal or moral right to do so, in your view?

Again, if Soros or anyone else actually paid someone to do something illegal, then they should be prosecuted. If there was even a hint of truth to that, I think there are plenty of state Attorneys General who'd take that case, if not even the FBI.


Don't put words in my mouth. I don't even know where you would've gotten that idea.


Violence is always a matter for law enforcement. We have police and the FBI. Let them do their jobs. If your local police aren't, then elect a new police chief, mayor, governor, etc.


I do agree, as I've said, that it's the responsibility of public officials to protect all groups' right to freedom of speech and assembly. If they're not doing that, take them to court. There's plenty of legal precedent, including even a Supreme Court case where they ruled that a city couldn't prevent the KKK from holding a rally.


Again, you're going to have to tell me where I said that, because I think I've consistently said the opposite.


So, after accusing me of being anti-free speech, now you're promoting some sort of media censorship? Go re-read the First Amendment.


No, treason is quite well-defined and it's not that. Again, for someone so big on rights & the Constitution, you seem awfully eager to limit the freedoms of those you don't agree with.

I find it ironic that, although you cite it more frequently, I'm actually doing a better job of defending the Constitution.


The feeling of empowerment you get by being "in the know" and seeing the "truth behind the system" doesn't mean you're right. Just because something runs counter to the mainstream narrative doesn't make it any more credible. And lastly, of the apocalyptic picture you seem to paint, I'd just point out that people have been saying "the end is nigh", for eons.

Just how much of your freedom and autonomy are you sacrificing to false prophets?
 
bit_user said:
Oh, you barely scratched the surface. Most of your links are worthless, as they don't really prove anything. It's true that the protest in Berkeley was shameful, but you really can't extrapolate from that one event to say anything meaningful about such a large group of people.

Absolutely right, I barely scratched the surface, & ya, Berkeley (where yet another violent group similar to AntiFa was paid by Soros) is shameful (& merely a show), in comparison to some other events & incidents which have occurred elsewhere when paid shills show up to break up otherwise peaceful demonstrations & prevent free speech from being expressed. However, to say those links are worthless is tantamount to ignoring inconvenient facts. Researching the roots of censorship is something people should care enough to do themselves. I took literally a minute or two to find a fair amount of links, making sure to include some MSM stories as well (with the exception of the site pretending to be ABC), to point out the kind of info stated above & show there's plenty of info one can look up themselves on the issue.

That well funded groups which defy basic human rights & constitutional law e.g. AntiFa paying protesters to suppress dissent & free speech in the US, EU, & elsewhere in the world through violence, intimidation; showing up to "counter-demonstrate" donning masks, various weapons, & making good on their threat of using violence is nothing new, & has, in fact, been going on for many years. Whether it's Wikileaks, the MSM, obscure sites & YT channels, or small groups & individuals trying their best to keep others informed on these matters: the resources are out their for those who care enough to do some objective research & take some time to follow the money. From what I understand Mr Soros is, at the moment, being investigated by Italian authorities for human trafficking & helping IS jihadists posing as "Syrian Refugees" stream into Europe, where they're welcomed especially by nations e.g. Germany, Sweden, France, UK, etc, & where "No Go Zones" policed by Shariah Law are off limits to these nations' own police forces. Actually, the complaints & accusations from Europeans in regards to Mr Soros et. al. far exceed those made by we here in the US, so far anyhow.

bit_user said:
I think my point was a valid clarification of my views and I felt it was warranted in order to highlight what I'm actually concerned about vs. the way you imagine elites are using their influence in harmful ways.

If you buy into the MSM narrative re people not paying taxes, too much bureaucracy, etc, was to blame, I disagree. I'd imagine most nations have their share of tax dodgers + too much red tape. The example you mentioned, however, is rather different.

Facts you can check for yourself: Plenty of NATO members, including Turkey, Greece, others, defaulted on their sovereign debt more than a few times in the past. So, what's different now? The EU. The "referendum" taken not long ago in Greece revealed most participants wanted their country out of the EU, the results were ignored.

The EU knowingly took in a nation unable to adhere to its policies, & threw it into an economic death spiral with little hope of escaping. Its indigenous people are denigrated, remaining culture destroyed, constitution, peoples' will ignored, remaining sovereignty stripped away. Since joining the EU, private interests have started mining gold & quietly exploiting other resources on a scale never seen before this financial "crisis". That Greece, long ago, should've used those resources to pay it's sovereign debt, yet didn't/hasn't, says much about how independent they ever were to begin with. Fwiw, I agree, the same has happened to varying degrees throughout much of the world.

bit_user said:
First, have you checked the subject of this thread? We're already off-topic with AntiFa. I actually wasn't trying to change the subject, but add a clarification as mentioned.

Actually, we're precisely on topic. The article isn't merely about tech, it crossed the barrier into free speech & how one site had its free speech taken away by being taken down. While I'm not a reader of the site, as many others have pointed out, be they orgs or individuals, this isn't merely a case of private companies taking denying a website it's free speech. It crosses into government censorship, as well.

Taken from an excerpt of a comment made by The Electronic Frontier Foundation: "what hosting companies such as GoDaddy and Cloudflare did was more worrisome than the social media companies’ censorship."

“With a content host that is like a social media site, they can just take down one post or eliminate one bit of content whereas Cloudflare and GoDaddy and so on, they can’t,” said Jeremy Malcolm, senior global policy analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation. “They had to take down an entire website, and that gives a lot more risk of taking down legitimate speech along with the problematic speech.” I believe you said you agreed this is a slippery slope, that it crosses the line when it comes to free speech. Ironically, the move gave the site a ton of publicity, & the site is up on Tor & elsewhere. It's like playing a game of whack-a-mole & in the end the move only made the site move elsewhere. I think we can both agree this isn't about content. It's about protecting free speech.

bit_user said:
I don't see any damning evidence, but thanks for clarifying your position.

Tha'ts because you choose to ignore it. He seems as though he's your hero. if so, fair enough. I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

bit_user said:
Again, if Soros or anyone else actually paid someone to do something illegal, then they should be prosecuted. If there was even a hint of truth to that, I think there are plenty of state Attorneys General who'd take that case, if not even the FBI.

Yep. But too often politics & corruption get in the way. Besides. Even if, by some miracle, people like Soros were prosecuted, unlike many others who know who what he does, I wouldn't want to wish to see him dehumanized by being sent to prison. I'd merely like to see him stop using his foundations, go betweens, powerful connections & wealth, to stop further destroying & dividing the US & other nations. I'd only wish it to stop. What's done is done, seeing it stop so that a one of many prerequisites for a healthy society to actually take root someday could be in place would be more than enough.

bit_user said:
Just how much of your freedom and autonomy are you sacrificing to false prophets?

Why would you assume I have any prophets? False or otherwise? Why would you assume to know anything about who I am, what I believe, or what I think? Did it ever occur to you that it's possible some of us can see things for what they are, and given the chance, would only wish what's best for all, despite having our own problems? Before you accuse others of sacrificing anything to false prophets maybe you ought to take a good look in the mirror yourself first & always.
 


I'm disappointed in the lack of your professionalism as a moderator. But otoh, that's fine. When one has to resort to attempting to ridicule those they disagree with, or when another upvotes posts they particularly like twice (if it was done deliberately), I think that says far more than those who they're attacking ever could.
 


IF you are using SPLC hate maps or lists, there is one thing to keep in mind: It is their definitions, their opinions, and their ideologies that define who gets on their lists. They have also shown themselves to not be impartial in their decisions and opinions but rather they have shown hateful tendencies themselves.

[edit: removed part of the quoted material. Added this:] I'm not saying that everyone on their list is innocent as girl scouts or boy scouts, but some on their lists are their because they are diametrically and politically opposed to their views and not because of any real hate spewed forth by groups.
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator


No I haven't, whereas you have repeatedly taken the side of the ultra far right "free speech" brigade. The alt right does not own the rights to free speech - in fact no group does, and if you think you own free speech more than the Antifa protestors you are screaming against, I suggest you take another look at the definition of free speech. Free speech does not belong to one specific group - it applies to everybody, even Antifa. And I provided plenty of links to back up my claims which you not only didn't read, you flat out dismissed as being not credible to the argument! And you think you're better than I am because you're not a leftist? Right! That would get you owned in a live debate.

You even up-voted your pal twice in the comments he posted before your own which I'm replying to now. You know, please, don't bother fixing it, really no need, but I now really have to wonder in regards to your credibility as a mod & in general. Is this something that's done regularly around here by you, or maybe just a glitch able to be taken advantage of? Just sayin, finding a way to deliberately upvote twice (if that is indeed the case?) on a topic that should've come to an end long ago but hasn't because the idea of anyone but you having the last word is just unacceptable, just seems kind of desperate, over-zealous, & pitiful to me, is all...

That was actually a forum glitch as I only meant to vote up once.

And don't single out FOX, those who own the MSM networks are RL good friends. They attend the same clubs, their children attend one another's birthday parties, etc. They've far more in common with one another than they do with you, me, or the saps they'd say they create their "news" for. The left-right divide is well in control by the owners of all MSM networks. My guess is you know that much but it just grinds your gears there are people out there who no longer fall for it. Which makes me wonder why I'm even bothering to reply to anything you have to say. Btw, I didn't bother checking out those 3 links you suggested, not because I don't care, but because they're not well funded orgs (like AntiFa) hiring actors to show up at demonstrations to suppress dissent, free speech, basic rights, with violence & intimidation. They aren't the ones openly against the US Constitution & funded by billionaires like George Soros via his network of NGO's & affiliates with an end goal to shut down debate or discourse on any idea deemed inappropriate. Those groups you mentioned are more or less innocuous & hardly any pay attention to anything they have to say, which is the way it'd remain if not for those who seek to impose their ideas unto others, get paid to actually do so, & end up violating our Constitutional Rights in doing so.

So do you have anything more productive to add to this argument other than "Antifa are paid by George Soros to suppress free speech"? Because it seems we're in what's known as a "circular firing squad" at this point in the argument. You have obviously bought into this right wing meme, yet you claim you are not a right winger. So which is it? But that's the main point of their argument is that they think George Soros is public enemy number one, but if you were to do any real research, apart from conspiracy theory hashtags, Fox News, and a 5 minute search on Google, he's but a small part of the picture. The right wingers love to focus on him as their punching bag because it's convenient to them and they don't have to think too much about it. And if you had bothered to do the reading I suggested, you would know that these groups use identical intimidation tactics to what you're describing, and it's not a conspiracy theory. Yet you only focus on "Antifa" because it's convenient to you. Antifa = Anti Fascist. If you are against Nazis, Nazi idealogy, or the like, you are anti fascist. Doesn't mean you are paid by George Soros. Right now George Soros is a useful idiot of the alt right - the right wing talk shows love to talk trash about this guy and they have no proof that he's done any of these things, it's all just to undermine and spread false narratives about the left. Anyone who shows up at rallies with the intent of starting fires and fights is counter productive to any rally. And the right will throw George Soros under the bus when he stops being useful to them.

Is an Orwellian future your ideal? If not, I'd check your perceived privilege to shut down free speech from others, because that is precisely the recipe for a police state which you seem to be promoting if I read your words right. And again, hope it's all worth it for you, please feel free to share how worth it if you wish. lol

*NO ONE* on the left is shutting down free speech. Your free speech rights are well protected. That was *NEVER* in the democratic party platform and it will never be in the democratic party platform. It's the ultra far right and ultra paranoid conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Roger Stone who are beating the dead horse about how free speech is under attack. Spouting the most bigoted speech and then claiming free speech is counter productive to the argument, it's a very dangerous game the alt right is playing with free speech right now.

Let's stick to one topic at a time here, and rather than regurgitate any info about any economic "crisis" you know about, like those who only promote the exact same narrative of the MSM, remember some of us actually know a thing or two underlying the situations & stories they shamelessly parrot one another about. If you're unable to maintain genuine discourse about the topic of why groups like AntiFa are wrong & un-American, then I doubt I'd want to waste my time discussing what you perceive to be "the facts" about any economic crisis. But, just a word of advice, before concerning yourself with economic problems in other nations, maybe it'd be a better idea to stick to the ones we face here in the US first...

OK so if you think Antifa is so wrong, what do you think of the Proud Boys? The Oath Keepers? The III%? These groups use literally identical intimidation tactics and they are out to suppress speech, yet the "MSM" doesn't nearly focus enough on these groups as they should. Does walking through small towns armed with giant AK-47s with the intent of intimidation count as "free speech"?

Absolutely right, I barely scratched the surface, & ya, Berkeley (where yet another violent group similar to AntiFa was paid by Soros) is shameful (& merely a show), in comparison to some other events & incidents which have occurred elsewhere when paid shills show up to break up otherwise peaceful demonstrations & prevent free speech from being expressed. However, to say those links are worthless is tantamount to ignoring inconvenient facts. Researching the roots of censorship is something people should care enough to do themselves. I took literally a minute or two to find a fair amount of links, making sure to include some MSM stories as well (with the exception of the site pretending to be ABC), to point out the kind of info stated above & show there's plenty of info one can look up themselves on the issue.

George Soros must love going for broke if he's paying all these protestors. :ange:

Yep. But too often politics & corruption get in the way. Besides. Even if, by some miracle, people like Soros were prosecuted, unlike many others who know who what he does, I wouldn't want to wish to see him dehumanized by being sent to prison. I'd merely like to see him stop using his foundations, go betweens, powerful connections & wealth, to stop further destroying & dividing the US & other nations. I'd only wish it to stop. What's done is done, seeing it stop so that a one of many prerequisites for a healthy society to actually take root someday could be in place would be more than enough.

What would the right wing get out of prosecuting George Soros? And what could they even prosecute him with? He has the right to free speech as much as you do. They have *ZERO* repeat *ZERO* proof that he's out there paying protestors left and right.
 


In this case... I have to agree. Free Speech isn't tied to just one group or select groups. It does apply to everybody, even, unfortunately, to groups that spew hate. It's the price we have to pay to keep all speech free.




If the double vote is a glitch, I vote that it (the double vote) be manually removed, regardless of the position taken.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY


See what I did here? Another protected right that the left wishes to remove. The start to total censorship starts innocently enough... ban "hate" speech... make it a crime. Problem is, the definition will change, the line will move. Given enough time, the First Amendment protection of natural rights (just like the 2nd Amendment) will be redefined... it might be a generation or so from now, or not, but it will eventually be criminal to even think your leaders are pompous fools for doing this thing or that.


The thing with AntiFa (Anti-Fascists) is they wish to participate in violence more than the prescribed petitioning of government... at least the ones showing up to other protests. Free speech protects them having their views, it doesn't protect them for being violent. Regardless if how much, or what they are getting paid with, if at all.

Those funding violence behind the scenes are usually smart enough to cover their tracks well enough for at worst plausible deniability, and at best, never seen at all (from their perspective.) Those that get caught usually screw up somewhere: get to cocky, let the wrong (or right) person in close enough, etc. Not all payments are monetary either. There are those who will do anything for the promise of fame and/or power. (Many find themselves "pwned" in the end: they being loose ends, et al.)
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator


Yup - that is the price we pay for free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

See what I did here? Another protected right that the left wishes to remove. The start to total censorship starts innocently enough... ban "hate" speech... make it a crime. Problem is, the definition will change, the line will move. Given enough time, the First Amendment protection of natural rights (just like the 2nd Amendment) will be redefined... it might be a generation or so from now, or not, but it will eventually be criminal to even think your leaders are pompous fools for doing this thing or that.

That video was from 1995, and people's positions change frequently. How is that any different now than it was 22 years ago? Slippery slope arguments like this are always counter productive. It starts with one thing, then it goes to this, and goes to this, next thing you know - total anarchy!!!! Plus this is completely unrelated to the argument at hand, and let's not go down that road any further than we've already gone.

The thing with AntiFa (Anti-Fascists) is they wish to participate in violence more than the prescribed petitioning of government... at least the ones showing up to other protests. Free speech protects them having their views, it doesn't protect them for being violent. Regardless if how much, or what they are getting paid with, if at all.

So why are Antifa and George Soros the bad guys? That's all I keep hearing is that they're the enemy. But why? That question has not been answered. Why is George Soros public enemy number one? And why do the right wing think they own the rights to free speech? In this country Antifa has as much of a right to speak as you or I do. There's no proof that they're paying protestors. It's all conspiracy theories.

Those funding violence behind the scenes are usually smart enough to cover their tracks well enough for at worst plausible deniability, and at best, never seen at all (from their perspective.) Those that get caught usually screw up somewhere: get to cocky, let the wrong (or right) person in close enough, etc. Not all payments are monetary either. There are those who will do anything for the promise of fame and/or power. (Many find themselves "pwned" in the end: they being loose ends, et al.)

I've still yet to see concrete proof that there's only one side being paid to protest. And the people who are accused of funding said protests must love going for broke. When I'm betting they haven't spent a dime.
 


Speaking purely personal, G-unit1111, Soros should be in jail for stealing £26 per head of every man, woman and child in the UK in one of the big financial crashes before the last one, just to make himself richer. In my view he should have been left in Hungary and never allowed loose in the free world.
 


Yes, it is a slippery slope. Slippery slopes have been exploited for centuries to accomplish totalitarian rule too. Yes, that was 22 years ago. The climate in the States still isn't one where She, or anyone else, short of causing a [civil] war could manage the stripping of firearms in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment from The People. It doesn't mean that they have given up or changed views. They just choose to be more sneaky. First by trying to use emotion over fact to sway anyone they can that guns are bad and only the government should have them. Second to take advantage of any slippery slope they can. Creating division to both distract and accomplish goals.




The best way to hide a real conspiracy, if it can't be kept under wraps, is to make it look like a conspiracy theory, which automatically gets dismissed, just as you have demonstrated here. (Nothing wrong with dismissing conspiracy theories when it's obvious they can't be true. It's the ones that you can't disprove, let alone prove that are the ones to examine closer.)

As to why the right wing believes they own free speech? For the exact same reasons the left does. (Reality is Right-Left... same coin, different sides... views made to oppose each other to draw attention away from said fact. just like Republicans and Democrats)

AntiFa has become the bad guys when they decide to act in violence. But they show up at speeches and demonstrations with the intent to disrupt or silence others. It would be different if all they did was shoot their mouths off. They cross the line when they attack, just as the Klan, BLM, Neo-Nazis, Panthers, or any other group crosses it when they go start a riot, a fight, or other violence.




That's the thing. The day you know with any certainty is either the day everyone finds out and does something about it, or their plans come to fruition and there is no longer any need to be in the shadows. I don't know of anything that proves he isn't involved either. You might be right and that Soros is just a scape-goat, based on previous activities, but without enough either way... doubt can linger on for a long time. Now, the best way to come close to the truth, if not the truth itself, is to follow the money. (Just be careful just in case there is something to it.)
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator
Yes, it is a slippery slope. Slippery slopes have been exploited for centuries to accomplish totalitarian rule too. Yes, that was 22 years ago. The climate in the States still isn't one where She, or anyone else, short of causing a [civil] war could manage the stripping of firearms in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment from The People. It doesn't mean that they have given up or changed views. They just choose to be more sneaky. First by trying to use emotion over fact to sway anyone they can that guns are bad and only the government should have them. Second to take advantage of any slippery slope they can. Creating division to both distract and accomplish goals.

That I will agree on - distraction is always counter productive to any argument.

The best way to hide a real conspiracy, if it can't be kept under wraps, is to make it look like a conspiracy theory, which automatically gets dismissed, just as you have demonstrated here. (Nothing wrong with dismissing conspiracy theories when it's obvious they can't be true. It's the ones that you can't disprove, let alone prove that are the ones to examine closer.)

As to why the right wing believes they own free speech? For the exact same reasons the left does. (Reality is Right-Left... same coin, different sides... views made to oppose each other to draw attention away from said fact. just like Republicans and Democrats)

AntiFa has become the bad guys when they decide to act in violence. But they show up at speeches and demonstrations with the intent to disrupt or silence others. It would be different if all they did was shoot their mouths off. They cross the line when they attack, just as the Klan, BLM, Neo-Nazis, Panthers, or any other group crosses it when they go start a riot, a fight, or other violence.

But you can't say one side is guilty of it when the other side is just as guilty. Antifa are painted by the right wing as being "leftist" but you can't really pin them on either side. Whereas the right has groups that are just as bad if not worse than Antifa like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, III%, and so on. These are the people who are bringing giant AK-47s and AR-15s to rallies with the express intent of harassment and intimidation. Would you agree they are a threat as well?

That's the thing. The day you know with any certainty is either the day everyone finds out and does something about it, or their plans come to fruition and there is no longer any need to be in the shadows. I don't know of anything that proves he isn't involved either. You might be right and that Soros is just a scape-goat, based on previous activities, but without enough either way... doubt can linger on for a long time. Now, the best way to come close to the truth, if not the truth itself, is to follow the money. (Just be careful just in case there is something to it.)

He is though. I'm not defending Soros, but at the same time I'm also saying if you're going to single him out, why not single out other people who are guilty of this? And I'm not saying all billionaires are good. Every side has their people like this whether its' the Kochs and Mercers on the right, or George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg on the left.
 


TBH: I'm not aware of the sins of Oath Keepers (other than the biased SPLC has them on their "hate" map), let alone the existence of the other groups. Please enlighten me. Also, what rallies are you referring to that firearms are being brought for the express intent of harassment and intimidation? (Are the groups proclaiming that is why or is it some other group that is making the accusations?) I'm honestly not up to speed on this part.




They all should be singled out if guilty. That's the way I feel about it. As it stands right now, we are facing a divide an conquer approach to changing this Nation further away from its roots and more into something more... controllable.

EDIT: It seems any group regardless of motivations that claim to wish to stand by and defend the U.S. Constitution THE SUPREME LAW of the land that the government is supposed to follow, is now labeled as anti-government and far-right. I have to laugh at this as most of those who claim such things are anti-U.S. Constitution as it gets in their way of forcing people into what they feel everyone should be. I guess if the government was actually pro U.S. Constitution (a written document, NOT a living document) that label would not exist.
 

g-unit1111

Titan
Moderator


Here's a good article on the Oath Keepers: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/militias-oath-keepers-rallies-1.4246317

I'll try to post more as I come across them.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador

This is exactly the problem. Searching for evidence to support an existing opinion is called "confirmation bias". If you care about truth, then you need to focus on the best investigation & reporting of an issue, and be willing to disregard anything which doesn't seem rigorous or unbiased. Claims must be subjected to a level of scrutiny that would disprove them, if they were false.

So, in the case of answering the question of paid protestors, it's not enough to find someone who simply claims they were paid, or to find an ad offering to pay people. Both of those can be planted to discredit the protests. What it would take is for multiple, credible people to go undercover, respond to these ads, go to the rallies, and then report on their findings. And when I said credible, I mean someone with a reputation of honest and ethical reporting - not someone with a clear bias in the matter.

IMO, the only MSM link you posted that's worth anything is the Washington Post link, which is just about a single event. A bunch of bad references doesn't add up to a few good ones - bad references are noise (or worse) and should be disregarded.

That said, it's not illegal to pay someone to protest. It would be illegal to pay someone to break the law, but there's no law against simply protesting (or counter-protesting). So, to the extent your case against Soros and AntiFa hinges on the idea that he hired fake protestors or funded legitimate ones, you might find that distasteful but it's not illegal and certainly not treasonous.

Again, you might not like it, but how do you feel about paid political advertising? Is that really so different? Both are someone paying others to broadcast a political message on their behalf.


These should be regarded with great skepticism. They might sound objective, but they're almost certainly put out by people with a certain agenda. It would take extremely rigorous fact-checking for me to trust anything of this sort.

No, how do you even get that, from anything I said? Seriously, you need to start answering for the words you're putting in my mouth. Because, if you don't tell me how it is you're making these misinterpretations, I have no choice but to assume they're either willful mischaracterizations or that I'm not dealing with someone who has a full deck of cards.


You don't seem to understand Federalism. In the US, government is not one monolithic thing. There is the Federal government, and there are state governments. Each state has a Attorney General and their own state and local law enforcement. There's no way Soros or anyone else can buy off all of them, particularly given the amount of political benefit they would stand to gain by prosecuting someone so unpopular with a certain portion of the electorate.


Why not? If someone actually committed crimes (and you did accuse him of treason, if you recall), they should face justice. That's how it works.

Now, if you're saying you actually think he's not committing crimes, but you don't like what he's doing, that's different. In that case, you shouldn't accuse him of committing crimes (or treason). Instead, maybe your beef is actually with the First Amendment. Maybe you really feel some forms of speech should not be protected. If that's your position, fair enough. Just be honest about it.


Relax, I didn't mean literally. I was just pointing out that you clearly get your views, opinions, and information from somewhere. I'm glad to hear you lead an examined life and are careful about letting yourself be manipulated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.