Lulz Security's string of embarrassing hacks continued as the group released hundreds of internal documents belonging to various Arizona law enforcement agencies, including the Arizona Department of Public Safety. Many of the documents released over BitTorrent are stamped “law enforcement sensitive” and “for official use only …
"The implication is that obviously the Mexican Government intends to do a lot of listening"
The implication is far more obviously that the Mexican Government isn't about to let themselves be roped in agreeing to not do something to the USoA that they already know for a fact the USoA is doing wholesale to them (and everyone else) and in fact has multiple TLAgencies dedicated to do just that and everything else under the sun and not under the sun remotely like it.
Yay for self-serving bullshit, the very foundation underpinning much of the USoA's foreign dealings. I'll not call it "diplomacy" for most of it is far from diplomatic. Like, well, this. Why the fsck would they even ask, except to get a fully expected rebuffal exactly so they can claim "the obvious" and bitch and moan about how mean them thar Mexicans are? Boy, gotta love a neighbor like that.
Ever been in a restaurant in Texas?
Noticed who washes the dishes? What language they speak?
People who don't get to vote.
Ever been in a restaurant in Texas?
Take a look at the COOKS while you're there...And it ain't just Texas... Anywhere within 1,000 miles of the border any busy, non-family owned restaurant has at least some cooks whose native language is Spanish.
What's the frequency?
I thing the anonymous coward is missing the more interesting point. By asking the Mex Gov to not monitor the short range border patrol frequencies (from just across the border), they are pretty much revealing that they suspect said Gov of actually aiding Mexicans to illegally enter the US. Otherwise there would be no point in making the request.
I agree it was stupid thing to request, as it is sure to be taken as an insult, regardless of any facts. Perhaps it was a not-so-subtle way of letting the Mex Gov know that "We're on to you."
Betcha a dollar that they'll find plenty of clear cut examples of malfeasance, even criminal acts, in any random pile of internal police records. The chances of it all being totally clean is basically nil.
This may get very interesting.
I've read the collection of e-mails and most of the docs. There is no smoking gun. Maybe a leaky water pistol.
It's a pretty boring collection.
As An Arizona Resident...
I would like to clarify that SB1070 (Senate Bill 1070) has absolutely NOTHING to do with race! Nowhere in the law is any race, color, creed or nationality mentioned. SB1070 is about criminality, not nationality!
This group is one of many that the (liberal) misinformation propaganda machine has duped into thinking those of us that make the great state of Arizona our home are racists. We are not. We are only interested in seeing the laws of the land applied to everyone.
How about giving it back to Mexico?
I'm not a chiropodist, but I do treat peoples feet for a living.
As a human being...
... I'm beginning to like these guys at LulzSec.
I consider a law that promotes racial profiling - yeah, it does*, given the demographics of the area- and considers a crime not having your documents with you at all times** -" show me your papers, comrade"- is a fscking roadmap to hell. It will be used and abused by the local law enforcement to harass members of certain ethnicities, whether they are citizens, legal residents or otherwise, and help push said members of said ethnicities into ghettoes, misery and crime. This law is a cross between a law and a self-fulfilling prophecy, and will only make things worse for everyone involved, except perhaps for the above said Law Enforcement Agencies, that will see their budgets soaring in the next years.
* It's not that racial profiling wasn't being used a lot without this law, but the law is just another incentive for said racial profiling.
** I think this part of the Law hides a catch 22, where not having your papers is a crime and committing a crime can cause the loss of legal resident status. This time it's a cross between a circular argument and a chain reaction.
PD: I think I should have added a Godwin somewhere in my comment, but I'm lazy. Mr. Bags&friends , please go and learn some History.
yeah, its racist
There are plenty of good reasons for not having your papers on you such as doing work where they are likely to get wet in your pocket (ie sweat from outdoor work, or kitchen) or stolen if left out.
After having lived in Spain for a bit I've noticed some interesting things:
1. Identity documents wear out rather quickly in your pocket.
2. Police only check the ID of people they don't like. I've been let through multiple blockades just based on my skin colour and the only time in three years I've been actually checked it was because they stopped the black guy I was walking down the street with and I stayed rather than leave.
thou protest too much, or something like that
Shill much? P'wah. Teabagger.
What, so then the Mexicans can give it back to the Spanish? Who should then give it back to a mixed bag of native Red Indian tribes? Sorry, I'm not a specialist on Arizonan history, but I'm pretty sure any Red Indian tribe wouls also have moved to the area and displaced other indigenous people, so who's to say who was the original land "owners"? Stupid comments will be shown up by those who can see beyond the political soundbites, and yours was a truly stupid comment.
RE: thou protest too much, or something like that
".....Teabagger." Interesting response. The laws that Arizona Republican-dominated Senare are enacting are just national laws, it's just that Arizona is enforcing them. The fact that the Arizonans intend to use them to reduce illegal immigration is what upsets people like you. You are upset becuase you are told it is "racist". Of course, the fact that the majority of the Latino votes goes to the Dummicrats may be the reason you are being told to squeal "racist" so loudly.
Let's clarify a few things
1. All non-EU foreign residents on non-tourists visas in the UK are obliged to carry documents at all time. The papers used to be laughable (even a schoolkid could fake them), but documents none the less. I still keep mine as a relic to show my kids and people who are having a "Guardian readership" intoxication.
2. All non-EU foreign residents on non-tourists visas in the UK are obliged to register with the police if they change residence for more than a week (if memory serves me right). I had to do that twice - once in Oxfordshire, once in Cambridgeshire. Got the stamps from both on the papers too.
3. Same as in Arizona not carrying your documents _IS_ a valid reason to join the extradition queue.
4. Same as in Arizona if you are a white Caucasian male speaking reasonable English you will never ever be asked for your documents. At least nobody asked me.
No more comment necessary.
re: more clarification
*LEGAL* immigrants are required to carry their doc. If they don't, it impacts their immigration. As long as they do not commit a crime or act shifty in an airport, highly unlikely that they will ever be asked to produce, but they still have to carry it. Why should *ILLEGAL* immigrants get special treatment? IANAL, but I never read anything in SB1070 that justified the hype. Either way.
If you think having to carry & produce doc is "unfair", remember, we have tax stamps on marijuana*, and we put gangsters in prison for not paying tax on illegal income, which are far more bullshitty (but effective) ways of enforcing laws when you can't prove a crime. I guess that means it's an unfair world, but you have to have some way of channeling people into being good citizens. If you have a better way, better get started with trying to change the system, rather than bitching about it or participating in hysteria over a law you know nothing** about.
Most of the histrionics over this law remind me a lot of the sad, sad tales of people that want immigration laws to work the way they *want* them to work, rather than the way they are *written* or *enforced* -- which are two different things at this time, which is why SB1070 in the first place. I'm fresh out of sympathy for people that immigrate on a fiancee visa, dump the dork the minute their feet hit the ground to go shopping for something better, and find themselves on an airplane wearing handcuffs, never to return. They pick a dork, they should stick with him for the three years like the law says -- ICE has no sense of humor. (being required by law to be nice to the guy they married for three years is about 2 years and 364 days more than most guys get, but who am I to question the motivation of the average dork on this...)
* -- waste of time, IMO. I also don't get the logic in beating up potheads and cancer patients. I'm an equal opportunity offender.
** -- nobody that ever told me they disliked that law has ever also been able to say they actually have *read* it. Ignorance truly is bliss, *and* you get to carry misspelled signs and participate in rallies...
@Matt Bryant - Posted Sunday 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
"The laws that Arizona Republican-dominated Senare are enacting are just national laws, it's just that Arizona is enforcing them."
That is plainly false. There is no national law that makes it a crime not to be carrying identification. It is a law that clearly does not only affect illegal immigrants. If an officer believes you might be a foreigner, perhaps your accent is a little to British for his tastes, then you must be able to produce documents proving you are legal or go to jail and prepare for deportation. I should hope that includes any white teenage hoodlums running about.
the Spaniards? or the Aztec? or the Cherokee? or the Anasazi? or the tribes before them?
RE: @Matt Bryant - Posted Sunday 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
You're just making the point that the kneejerk reaction to SB1070 is born out of ignorance. To summarise Title 8 of the United States Code (i.e., federal law), Chapter 12, Subchapter 2, Part 8, Section 1302 and Section 1308 ((commonly referred to as just "Title 8, Section 1302-and-8" by visa agencies), U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of fourteen who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government, and to have those registration documents in their possession at all times. As part of that registration you are finger-printed. Seeing as I'm British and have worked in the US for periods of over 30 days, wanna guess which laws I had to be aware of and abide by? I suggest you try just the insy-winsyiest bit of background reading before your next leap of blind political faith, otherwise people might assume you are a guillible moron.
See, the difference, Matt, is that you've been in the US *legally*. Producing the doc that you possess *legally* is, while a nuisance that I am all too familiar with, a relatively trivial thing.
It wouldn't do to go around making sense. Cuts into the time people can spend with misspelled signs, babbling on the evening news about "racism" and "hardship", supporting what amounts to scabs on the US labour market.
They are on a rampage...
And will not stop. I've never seen so many attacks by one group in so little time. Other groups are also doing the same thing. The web is on fire. And I am finding all this quite amusing. Let's watch the fireworks.
Lulz for health
Yes, they're being dicks about stuff, but hopefully we now have a proper 'bogeyman' figure to threaten MD's with to take hardening more seriously.
Identity papers *have* to be carried in America
Funny I'd thought the US did not require this.
Your papers, comrade...
The USA does require legal permanent residents (LPRs) to carry their permanent resident card (green card) at all times. To be asked to present it and not have it is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of (I think) up to $500.
In most parts of the USA, it's no big deal. The chance of being asked to show your card is infinitesimally small because in each state, the drivers license is the king of the ID world and is pretty much the only proof of identity you will ever be asked for by a cop or anybody else for that matter. Further, in every state (I think, certainly virtually every state), you have to show proof of either US citizenship or legal immigration status to get a drivers license so possession of a valid license proves legal status in itself.
However, in some parts of the country, being a foreigner and not having proof of legal status that's officially recognised by the immigration status (a green card, a valid visa, etc) can get you in serious trouble. Arizona is one such place, Georgia may very soon (next week) become another and so is any location that is a participant of ICE's 287(g) programme. Any place near the Mexican border, where inland roadblocks/checkpoints are not uncommon is another place where you wouldn't want to be caught without your papers.
If you get in trouble for not having proof of lawful status, you're not going to be deported (assuming you have lawful status, of course) but the process of being hauled off to the local jail while they dig into your history to discover if you are legal or not is likely to be very unpleasant indeed!
@John Smith 19
Ssshhh... Don't tell the liberals that!
RE: @John Smith 19
I travel pretty regulalrly to the States, mainly the Southern ones but also Washington DC, Marlyand and New York at times. I ALWAYS carry my passport with me at all times, just as I do when travelling in any foreign country. I have been stopped in several different US states and asked to produce ID any confirm I have permission to be in the States. If I was caught without papers, I would likely be arrested as a possible illegal alien. Seeing as I am white, I can point out the stupidity of those stating only "brown/black/yellow people" get stopped.
@ Matt Bryant 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
Careful, Matt! Your straw dog is smoking!
Nobody is saying that they won't ask for your passport in the states. But in AZ, being white, you'll have a very small chance. On the other hand there will be lots of 'dark skinned citizens' and legal residents who will have their papers requested very, very often. For the legal immigrants, forgetting their documents will be a crime, which could end with their legal immigrant status. In most of the rest of the States, being an immigrant forgetting your papers would mean just a fine. In AZ, if you are a legal immigrant, forgetting your papers just once could mean you lose EVERYTHING. Add racial profiling to that broth and even you should be able to see why this law is racist, even when, as another commentard noted before*, race is not mentioned in the Law.
* I hope that said commentard was just doing some trolling. If he believes what he wrote, he should be looking for help ASAP.
RE: @ Matt Bryant 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
"....But in AZ, being white, you'll have a very small chance...." Hmmm, let's see now. Ignoring the fact that you are just making an assumption anyway (how can you possibly predict who will be stopped or asked, do you have the ability to predict the future? - I doubt it), the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are of Mexican origin, so it's a pretty fair bet that more Mexicans will be caught. BUT, the law requires ALL people stopped or involved in any police matter (such as in traffic checks) to asked for their papers (I hope for once you did do some research before jumping on the popularist bandwagon?). So, using the traffic checks example, seeing as there are more white car drivers in Arizona than Mexicans, it is highly likely MORE white people than Mexicans will actually be asked for proof that they are legally in the country. Oh, you did know that traffic checks and stops were the most common occaissions for police in Arizona to be in a position to ask for papers, didn't you? Oh, what a surprise - you didn't.
As for your wild squealling about legal immigrants forgetting their papers and losing EVERYTHING (did I get the right tone of kneejerk liberal hysteria there?), the only "punishment" is they get a fine for a misdemeanour crime, not some life sentence or immediate expulsion from the States. The matter only goes further if they cannot prove they are legally in the country, and seeing as, to be there legally means they are registered with the US gubbermint, even if they lose their papers there will still be a federal record to act as a safety-net. Please, try and get a sense of perspective before your next bout of self-righteous verbal diarrhea.
RE: RE: @ Matt Bryant 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
"Ignoring the fact that you are just making an assumption anyway"
No assumption. The Internets is full of forums filled to the gunwales with descriptions of this racial profiling, which is seen by many citizens of Latino ancestry as a form of harassment. And as I said in my post, the cops in the area aren't exactly looking for Nordic types.
"how can you possibly predict who will be stopped or asked, do you have the ability to predict the future?"
Everybody can predict the future, up to a degree, based on formerly known facts and some reasoning. And as I wrote in my post, racial profiling is endemic in Arizona.
"the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are of Mexican origin, so it's a pretty fair bet that more Mexicans will be caught BUT, the law requires ALL people stopped or involved in any police matter (such as in traffic checks) to asked for their papers"
Sir, you disappoint me. This is a very weak sophism. Which event has the greatest chance of happening?
A- Having your papers requested due to a car crash or a road check?
B- Or having your papers requested due to a car crash or a road check OR some cop not liking your looks?
Now, add to that that in traffic checks, usually the cops ask only for the driving licence. Except if you are in AZ and are dark skinned, in which case the cop will request your papers almost always, unless he knows you personally .
"As for your wild squealling about legal immigrants forgetting their papers and losing EVERYTHING (did I get the right tone of kneejerk liberal hysteria there?), the only "punishment" is they get a fine for a misdemeanour crime"
If you had read TfuckingFA, and/or some of the links provided by other commenters, it's a misdemeanor in the rest of the States, but in AZ it's a crime. And yes, they can remove legal immigrant status from people who commits crimes. And please consider the implications for the citizens of Latino origin.
" The matter only goes further if they cannot prove they are legally in the country"
Ahem, the SB1070 makes a crime "not having your documents with you" as opposite to "being illegally in the USA" .
You verbal kung fu is weak today, Mr. Bryant. You'll have to try harder.
RE: RE: RE: @ Matt Bryant 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
"....No assumption....." Erm, yes, you just admitted it was!
"....The Internets is full of forums filled to the gunwales with descriptions of this racial profiling..." Ah, a more unbiassed and truly verifiable source of data would be hard to find than Internet forums - NOT! Please, if the best argument you can give is "an AC on some forum said so" then I really think you need to go back to kindergarten.
"....Everybody can predict the future, up to a degree..." So you're admitting you can't predict the future accurately. You're also avoiding the issue that you assume all Arizona police officers will only operate the checks out of some form of racist vindictiveness, rather than becuase they should already be doing so.
"....This is a very weak sophism..." Actually, no. You cannot get a driving licence in the US without proof you are a resident, i.e., not an illegal alien. Possession of a valid driving licence is accepted as proof of legal immigrant status. You are bound by federal law to carry your driving licence whenever driving, so if an officer asks you for your licence he is also effectively checking your immigration status. I know this as when I was stopped for speeding in Florida I was asked for my driving licence, produced my UK licence, and was then asked for my passport so they could check my tourist visa.
"....OR some cop not liking your looks..." So we're back to your childish presumption that all cops are racists. Did you ever stop to think that if all the cops were racist then the Arizona Senate wouldn't have needed to pass SB1070 to make the police enforce the federal law? If they were all racist there wouldn't be a problem, they'd be stopping every car with a brown person in it. I can only suggest your inbred ignorance is the result of a tiny and equally-self-deluded pool of aquaintances, and that maybe you should try getting out and seeing the real World rather than just taking their word for "how it is".
"....usually the cops ask only for the driving licence...." Which is also a test of legal immigrant status. You're just piling up the fail here.
".....Except if you are in AZ and are dark skinned...." Because you were at every traffic stop ever in Arizona, right? I mean, how else would you be able to make a blanket statement like that? Unless you were talking out of your prejudiced rectum, that is. Oh, and yes, automatically assuming all cops are racist is just another form of the prejudism you are frothing about. Truly you are a master of fail.
"....And yes, they can remove legal immigrant status from people who commits crimes...." And yet you fail to provide a single case where this has happened, or even the proof that there is a legal mechanism to do so, or to account for the appeals system that would make any such attempt to remove legal status for a misdemeanour very unlikely to succeed even if it were to be attempted. In short, if you stretch it any further it's going to look so silly that even five-year-olds will laugh at your "arguments".
"....And please consider the implications for the citizens of Latino origin...." What, they should get special consideration just because they are Latino? Are you suggesting only white illegal immigrants from wealthy countries should be subject to the law? That's positive discrimination, which is also illegal. Seeing as Mexico is also the home to Carlos Slim Helu, the World's richest man, your reverse racism also seems a bit insulting to Mexicans.
"....You verbal kung fu is weak..." Given that you come across as such an unaccomplished debater, totally reliant on easily debunked waffle, I can't say I hold much value to your opinion.
RE: RE: RE: RE: @ Matt Bryant 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
Well said. Made me laugh.
RE:RE: RE: RE: @ Matt Bryant 26th June 2011 15:19 GMT
Let's discuss your arguments one by one:
"Assumption" : Point taken, it's an assumption, but in no way is it a baseless assumption, but one based on previous events.
"Ah, a more unbiassed and truly verifiable source of data would be hard to find than Internet forums": There are other sources, if you care to look for them. Many ACLU and AI reports and trials in courts in many countries, including the USA. All of them quite verifiable. Or are you telling us with a straight face that racial profiling is not abused?
"sophism": Here you are flat out lying, when you try to make it look as if the law in the rest of the States was the same as in AZ. Main differences: In AC it's a crime, punishable with prison time and/or expulsion, while in the rest of the USA it's just a demeanour, punishable with a fine. At the same time you dodge the sophism issue about the probabilities. Perhaps you consider that part of your argument undefendible?
"....Everybody can predict the future, up to a degree..." :Your answer to this point is so full of BS I was tempted to leave it alone, but, here I go:
* "You're also avoiding the issue that you assume all Arizona police officers will only operate the checks out of some form of racist vindictiveness". No, what I'm assuming is that, in AZ, everybody with Latino looks will be targeted by the police. Are you denying this?
*"Possession of a valid driving licence is accepted as proof of legal immigrant status": That is true for the rest of the USA. In AZ, post SB1070 legal residents have to carry also their Green Card. More BS.
"So we're back to your childish presumption that all cops are racists": They don't need to be racists, they only need to obey racist orders, like "Check any Latino you see"
"[Driving license] Which is also a test of legal immigrant status. You're just piling up the fail here": If you had bothered to read and understand TFA, you'd be aware of the fact that this is not the case in AZ any more, since SB1070. The fail I'm piling is all yours, mate.
"Because you were at every traffic stop ever in Arizona, right?" Yes, I was. Only a being with godly powers like me would dare to challenge your BS. XD
"And yet you fail to provide a single case where this has happened": man, if the Law allows it, I don't need to prove it has happened already. The weight of the proof is on you, and you must prove it will never happen. Good luck with that.
"What, they should get special consideration just because they are Latino? ": But this law GIVES THEM AN ESPECIAL CONSIDERATION. Before SB1070 they could use their driving license as proof they were either 'legals' or citizens. Now, Latino citizens can choose between using other documents as id, on top of their driving licenses, or having the police performing checks on them every time they'are stopped and requested their id. Don't think they'll like it.
"Given that you come across as such an unaccomplished debater, totally reliant on easily debunked waffle, I can't say I hold much value to your opinion": After giving us your load of lies, misinformation, weak logic and weasel words, you declare yourself the winner of the debate. Hooray! Go, Matt, go! And here I am, wondering what game you thought you were playing.
So, what happened to "It's all about the Lulz?"
Could have sworn that was this "group's" original stand. Doesn't surprise me though. As I've said countless times, each hack was not carried out by the same group but instead by different people. LulzSec is just another Anonymous.
Anyway, last I checked, protesting that violates existing laws is still ILLEGAL. No matter how you spin it, these self-righteous twats are still criminals.
Hacking the Arizona police department will accomplish nothing. Do you really think this will make Arizona more eager to discuss alternatives to the law? In other news, releasing internal documents belonging to a critical service (such as the police) is probably the most stupid thing "the collective" has done.
"...each hack was not carried out by the same group but instead by different people."
Eerrrrrr - wasn't that the basic assumption all along. I doubt your conclusion is new, because it is fairly obvious that LulzSec was another nebulous set of people under a common name - like Al Quaida.
Oh, excuse me...
With all the news outlets referring to them as "the group", you can imagine why I am skeptical that that is true. Also, that was not posted for your benefit. More for the benefit of those who might not have come to that conclusion on their own.
One thing that most folks do not know is that the AZ law actually mirrors federal law . What pissed the Feds of was not the content of the law , but that the nature of the law. States can not them selfs pas laws dealing with immigration controls .
Im usually for ethical hacking and all that but when your doing it to make a political statement do these children not realize who they are poking sticks at?
We've seen alot of one-way political statements being made and expressed for many years now and alot of it has gone under the radar.
What are the children of anonymous to do if those with money, power, and an axe to grind decide to put the crosshairs on them?
If 'anonymous' or any other group wants to disagree with the policy of an area of the country they live in they are free to voice their opinions at the ballet box. If they do not live in the area or are not legally able to vote attempting to act as a distraction or to cause damage to another shouldn't go without penalty.
If anonymous doesn't like it that illegal aliens are asked to do the same thing the rest of us are (keep identification on us) that can become a two way street. One of the reasons anonymous is anonymous is because we do have data protection laws that prohibit isps from quickly and without warrant to turn over customer information.
Well perhaps the isps can start making their subscriber information public. What would anonymous do? They are anonymous because governments grant them that immunity. Yeah you can hide behind proxys and off-shore networks but those can be taken off the net faster then you can say moms basement.
Can't have it both ways, we are either a country of laws or we are lawless.
Mexico and alot of the third-world is lawless, perhaps anonymous can move to mexico. They're find themselves in a ditch long side the road.
I'm interested ...
... in what a "ballet box" might be. I'm torn between something the male dancer wears down his tights to prevent being kicked in the balls, and what a ballerina keeps in the lower parts of her tutu.
New headline - Lulzsec dumps and runs.
Looks like someone in the group has finally got an inkling of just how much trouble they are in:
Silly skiddies, don't they know that just because they say "please don't spank me, we promise not to do it again" it won't stop them being chased by the authorities?
Lulzsec supports the elites and the cheap labour lobby
It might even be that Lulzsec works for the Mexican government. You know, Mexico, the country that has produced the world's richest man, yes that Mexico and the Mexico that, instead of investing in it's own economy, instead of taking care of its own people, instead, encourages its poor to illegally enter the US.
That brings us to the bleeding hearts in the US who enable the cheap labour types to make massive profits while impoverishing US citizens. Every cheap Mexican worker is one less US worker. All those jobs that Americans used to have went to Mexicans and other cheap workers, not because Americans didn't want to do them, but because companies didn't want to pay them a living wage. Every cheap Mexican worker is also a drain on the US economy because most of them get benefits in some form or the other: free school meals, affirmative action scholarships, etc. So the US citizens who do have jobs end up supporting the cheap labour that is destroying the US.
This, of course, plays right into the hands of the elites with money. The bankers, the big property owners, the multi-national corporations all benefit from illegal Mexican labour. They can buy another yacht, another island, another politician with all this money. Not that they need any more than they already have, but you have to keep score some way, don't you?
So when Arizona tries to fight back, when Arizona tries to stick up for its citizens, you know, the little guys who won't be able to get a job and eat or have any sort of future at all because cheap labour Mexicans keep taking their jobs, then Arizona comes under attack. All the usual 'civil liberties' groups pop out of the woodwork screaming 'racism'. To them, only non-whites have rights. Then the US federal government attacks. Never mind the rights of states. Never mind the rights of US citizens. No, those come second, if they come at all, to the rights of non-US citizens because cheap labour trumps all.
And now Lulzsec gets involved. Lulzsec pretends that it is something special. The group fancies itself to be filled with rebels. Far from it. Now I know, absolutely know, that the hackers that form that group are the same old politically-correct fools that fill up the middle classes, that fill up the local councils in the UK (and the equivalent in the US), and that make up the majority of politicians in any Western government you happen to name these days.
In a way, I don't really care. The US isn't my country and, given how it interferes so much in the business of other countries, it won't bother me to see it fall. Still, though, one should be honest about these things instead of the hypocrites and fools that the bleeding hearts types are - instead of the hypocrites and fools that make up Lulzsec.
Agree to a point, but...
The same elites w/money & statists that are profiteering off of cheap illegal labor are the same schmucks trying to interfere with other countries, for exactly the same reason -- it's all a form of mercantilism/corporate welfare. It's all going to stop soon -- and you can thank the "tea baggers" for putting the brakes on it. We've had enough. TEA stands for "Taxed Enough, Already". It isn't just what goes to Infernal Revenue that taxes us.
We ordinary people that want our jobs to pay what they used to don't want to interfere in other countries, either -- we just want to be left alone. We'd be more than happy to leave world+dog alone.
Don't wish fail on us.
elitists? bleeding hearts? wtf?!!
Not that I have a horse in the race but since when is being part of the elite a bad thing? I thought that was the point of a free market - the best swim on top (and their waste trickles down). Democracy goes in a slightly different direction and delivers power to the most popular. With the deregulation of campaign funds in the US, elections are becoming more of a scam where only the rich can play. It's starting to smell of aristocracy and computer savvy kids dislike authority. What did you think was going to happen?
btw. free market also means no living wage (or minimum wage for that matter), no protection for the domestic workforce (a.k.a. outsourcing FTW), no legal protection from corporations and other big organisations, no unions, etc. So if you want government protecting your workplaces your best bet would be to campaign & vote democrat. Alas, there are no guarantees in life.
Now, if you are a bastard who wouldn't help a drowning man (especially if the man in question is a gay female liberal commie illegal alien) then just ignore me and carry on.
RE: elitists? bleeding hearts? wtf?!!
"....So if you want government protecting your workplaces your best bet would be to campaign & vote democrat...." Erm, love to burst your bubble, but investigations of the Dummicrat Stimulus showed that it was sending massive amounts of both US taxpayers' cash and jobs abroad, especially to China. The windfarms that Lewis bangs on about in his UK energy articles were a particular source of criticism in the US, with 80+% of the first round of Stimulus funding of renewables going to overseas companies. I would suggest a more practical approach would be a little research rather than just blindly following the Dummicrat line.
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
You conflate voting democrat with defending labor, aided by your profound misunderstanding of basic economics.
"free market also means no living wage (or minimum wage for that matter), no protection for the domestic workforce (a.k.a. outsourcing FTW), no legal protection from corporations and other big organisations, no unions, etc."
Apparently, we are not free to ditch a poorly paying employer and seek better wages elsewhere.
Also, you say we need "protection" from these bogeymen -- but in every protection racket I've ever heard of, the protector wants his pound of flesh. Since this particular "protector" is importing cheap labor to crash the market and generate more demand for their "protection", I think we could stand to do with less "protection" and more "freedom", even without their demand for a larger slice of the economy for the dubious "protection" they're providing. We're getting "serviced", all right -- just in the agricultural sense.
You propose to solve the problem of Republican Big Business with a Democrat solution -- has the revolving door between places like Goldman Sachs and GE (as well as their payout money) and this particular administration escaped your notice? Last I heard, those corporations not only are significantly larger than their Republican counterparts, but also played an instrumental part in the economic disaster we're living in, with a presence in this government several orders of magnitude larger.
A history lesson.
An American colleague pointed the following out to me a while back. He votes Republican and gets very annoyed with the slick manouvering of the Democrats and their attempts to make being Republican tantamount to being racist.
Seen the film "Forrest Gump"? Remember the bit where Forrest gets mixed up in the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" incident, where the Governor of Alabama was trying to stop three black students entering the University of Alabama? That was Democrat Governor George Wallace, infamous for his inaugeration speech which included the claim "....I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever...". The really funny bit was Wallace lost the previous Democrat Governor primary to John Patterson as Patterson had the open support of the Klu Klux Klan. So, you might think Wallace was just a fringe element of the Dummicrats? Actually, he had enough mainstream Democrat support to make three runs for the Democrat Presidential nomination.
For those that would be inclined to save said drowning non-white lesbian, you might want to read the following Wall Street Journal article on how the Democrats have whitewashed their party's history: