Anonymous Vows to Shut Down Fox News

1. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

   Things sure do keep being interesting. Don't they?
   
   "politicususa.com — The collective activist group Anonymous has made a clear and concise statement after citing Fox News’ propaganda efforts against the Occupy Wall Street movement, to shut the station down. Anonymous, in a YouTube video specifically points out the talking points Fox repeatedly uses to denounce the movement in sweeping stereotypical generalizations such as, “filthy, disgusting and dirty” to describe the protesters..."
   
   http://digg.com/news/politics/anonymous … n_fox_news

   replyreport
   1. 61

      emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I find it interesting that Anonymous/Lulzsec/Antisec get so worked up and passionate about certain topics, but when they strike, they usually just end up with mostly collateral damage, and nothing to further their actual views. Should be interesting to see what happens, and the arrests that follow. (announcing to the FBI when you are going to unleash a cyber attack isn't the best idea, even if you're proxied and running off your neighbor's internet).

      replyreport
2. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

   A better link.
   
   http://www.politicususa.com/en/anonymous-fox-news
   
   "November 5th, may the hunt begin."

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Well, are they bipolar or just confused in general?   Or radical?
      First they say they'll "commence attacks" but they don't state whether that just means verbal attacks or what.
      Then, although their name is "Anonymous", they make the statement that "we are legion.....expect us".  LOL and hey that's actually scary.  It's a reference to a Bible verse where devils say they're "legion".
      
      Guess they're in time for Halloween, huh?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Ya know... I've heard of them before, but I've never checked them out. Stay tuned.

         replyreport
3. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

   That's next Saturday. I think I'll be watching Fox off and on throughout that day...

   replyreport
4. 74

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

     wow.

   replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   Could they take out MSNBC while they're at it?? Oh, wait...I think the ratings are doing that.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I wonder what Keith Obermann is up to these days...

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I can't stand Keitho! I prefer O'Donnell to him. I like Rachel! One of my faves is CNN's John King. I also like Shep on FOX, but I celebrated the day Beck left.

         replyreport
6. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

   "Anonymous hackers are threatening to disable Fox News' website for denouncing the Occupy Wall Street ..."

   replyreport
   1. 60

      paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I was thinking they were going to hack into and shutdown the cable channel. Oh, well...

      replyreport
7. 0

   Wilfionposted 13 years ago

   Remember, remember, the 5th of November.  Not a good day historically to attempt an attack.  Guy Fawkes wasn't successful.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I had to look that up...
      
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
      
      For my fellow illiterates, that was the day he was captured getting ready to blow up Parliament.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         May 8th 2009 was the equivalent of a successful attempt. Mps expenses.

         replyreport
8. 64

   Greek Oneposted 13 years ago

   they arent going to touch the Simpsons or the NFL, are they?

   replyreport
9. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   A penny for the Guy?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      When I was a kid we'd wheel some character around made from old tights and stuffed with newspaper, in an old stroller and say a penny for the Guy. Funny, I've not heard that expression for years now. Maybe, todays kids are just smart and have realized how much the penny has depreciated.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Wilfionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         When I think about it, I do wonder why we have been burning an effigy of a man who was executed over four-hundred years ago, whilst standing around a bonfire, and then lighting a Catherine wheel, to remember the brutal torture to death of Saint Catherine, whilst shoving a lighted firework in the hands of young children, all in the name of fun.  An image of the ending of the Wicker Man spings to mind.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it does appear we may be collectively sadistict.

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            That was one of the scariest movies ever!

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I haven't seen that movie. It's next on the list now you've both menioned it, however, I have the Blair Witch Project to watch tonight.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  That one was great too.  Some people thought it was silly and too tame.  It freaked me out!  And the suspense toward the end was almost tangible.  I won't give it all away.  After you watch it, let us know if you liked it!?

                  replyreport
               2. 0

                  Wilfionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I think the original with Edward Woodward is terrifying.  There is a later American version, which wasn't at all scary.  I didn't like the camera movements in Blair Witch.  In fact, I didn't watch it to the end because of them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Edward Woodward, that takes me back. I'l have to look out for it. I have seen BWP before, but years ago, can barely remember it.

                     replyreport
10. 72

    Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

    Isn't anonymus affiliated with Wikileaks?   They claim to have enough information to take down banks, corporations and even governments.  If anything happens to Julian Assange they threaten to release the info.
    
    Do it, I for one want to see this information.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, I belelive they are affiliated with Wikileaks. Julian Assange turned up to Occupy LSX wearing the "anonymous mask" The police made him remove it.

       replyreport
11. 0

    Brenda Durhamposted 13 years ago

    If "Anonymous" would just wait a while, they wouldn't have to try to shut down Fox News.  It'll burn itself out all by itself if they keep liberalizing it!  There are several commentators who posit very liberal positions on some of the major subjects.  And in their quest for "fair and balanced" shows, they're very friendly with liberals usually, and have some specifically-liberal commentators as legitimate group members.
    It's becoming almost bland for me.   When Glenn Beck left, it took it down a notch too.   Although....even he wasn't totally conservative.
    
    I'm wondering if fame kills standards.  I know tolerance brings them down.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       How can tolerance bring down standards, this statement Brenda, I do not understand.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Progressive tolerance for ideas and things that are wrong, eventually re-sets standards.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             But "wrong" is so often a value judgement, based on one's education, biases or beliefs. Tolerance, allows others to air their views. When an approach is tolerant, it allows both sides to present a case, not necessarily re-set standards, but to present both sides of an argument. That way, viewers can determine and define right from wrong. A bit like a court case, both the defence and prosecution believe they are right. However, it takes a jury to examine the evidence and draw a conclusion.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                You're correct.  But there are some arguments that should never be given airtime.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Well, maybe they should. If they are intrinsically wrong, the jury will see this. Generally speaking, I believe that most people have good intentions and know right from wrong, they should not be denied some of the evidence, even if it is incriminating. The verdict would be more balanced, and based on real evidence, not one sided.

                   replyreport
          2. 0

             Wilfionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Morality, thankfully has the ability to progress.  This doesn't mean that moving away from the old morality means that immorality is bound to follow.  There was a time when slavery was considered moral, and anyone who suggested otherwise were mad, bad or dangerous.  Old morality believed that a wife was the possession of her husband, women who thought differently were witches or irreligious, because the Bible makes it clear that a wife should obey her husband. 
             
             So, it is a mistake to believe that morality cannot change and progress, and tolerance and accepting people who are considered to be different (even socialists) is one indication that morality and liberality can go hand-in-hand.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Eh, I doubt slavery was considered moral by anyone who had good morals.
                Morality isn't progressive.  It doesn't change.  Right is right and wrong is wrong.  Although life would seem easier if it didn't.   Rules of society and rules of God;  how inconvenient!
                The Bible makes it clear that a wife should obey her husband when the husband is true to Godly principles.  To entertain the idea that a woman has no right to be treated respectfully is akin to Fox News entertaining the notion that the Leftist ideaology is legitimate fodder for discussion.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Wilfionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Sorry to disagree with you about slavery, but the following is a quote from the Bible, which is of course the Word of God.
                   
                   However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
                   
                   Or maybe this one.
                   
                   When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Maybe that's an example of the problem with new translations (errr....interpretations I call 'em) of the Bible.  The NLT may say that, but the KJV doesn't say "slaves".  It says "bondsmen" and "bondsmaids", indicating working for pay or housing, etc.

                      replyreport
                      1. 69

                         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         A slave is a slave, no matter what word you use to cover it up or dress it up as.

                         replyreport
                      2. 0

                         Wilfionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         You are quite right.  So, I have turned to the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines bondsman as an archaic term for a slave.  And the Universal Dictionary defines it such: - A person obligated to service without wages, a slave or a serf.  I then suggests to "See bondage."  Which I have done, and it defines it as such:- The condition of a slave or serf; serfdom; servitude.  A state of subjection to any force, power or influence.  There is always the possibility that the dictionaries are wrongly translated as well.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            Well, this may require more research.  Other than that, I dunno what to say, except
                            
                            I think....my husband and I are slaves to Chase Home Finance.  We'll be kicked out of our home if we don't pay, and even if we do pay, it'll be many years before we actually own the home.  We made an agreement, so we're bound (bonded) to that agreement. Unless we in future reach a point where we need to use the option of "jubilee" (bankruptcy), which, incidentally, is an Old Testament law.   I can only assume those so-called "slaves" had that option too.  Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure there are Scriptures in Deuteronomy on the situation of bondsmen/women and their ability to run from their debts, etc....

                            replyreport
                            1. 69

                               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               WOW!

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  It's always such fun to "Wow" you Cagsil.   I crave your attention, ya know!

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 69

                                     Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     Now, go and repent your sin(lie) woman. Go get your forgiveness for which you're not due.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        What specific sin?  I know I've had to be forgiven many times over the years.  Convince me and I'll repent.
                                        
                                        Art thou prepared to repent also?
                                        
                                        Please hurry.  I'm getting so sleepy.

                                        report
                                        1. 69

                                           Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                           Your lie: I crave your attention?
                                           
                                           Now repent to your imaginary god and get your forgiveness that you're not due.
                                           
                                           As for me? I hold myself accountable. I've no reason to speak to your imaginary god.

                                           report
                                           1. 0

                                              Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                              Eh....my sentence "I crave your attention" was a bit of sarcasm mixed with the fact that I do indeed like conversing with you (sometimes, just sometimes haha).    I wasn't trying to make you upset, though, really.  If I've upset you, I apologize to you.   However, I don't see a need to repent to God in this particular instance.  You'll have to convince me better than you have.   Forgiveness that I'm not due?  Indeed, He did that on the Cross.  I'm not worthy of any of it, except in His forgiving and Loving eyes.  Amazing Lord He is!

                                              report
12. 60

    paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago

    O'Reilly is picking on the protesters again...

    replyreport
13. 61

    Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

    The last I heard, Anonymous supports Ron Paul
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cfeF7DBBE
    
    However, I was led to believe that they agree not to support any political figure.
    
    Either way, if you read their forums, MANY of them are pro-Ron Paul

    replyreport