Anonymous's War on Trump Described as Successful and Disastrous (techinsider.io) 201
CitizensForTrump.com and the Trump Hotel Collection site reportedly went offline Friday, seeming to confirm threats made by the hacktivist collective Anonymous. But TechInsider is reporting that "The 'total war' that Anonymous declared earlier this month against Donald Trump has devolved into a war among hackers fighting within the group and pro-Trump supporters who are trolling them within their chat rooms." They describe two warring factions within the group's anti-Trump movement, also quoting CloudFlare's CEO as saying denial of service attacks "are sort of the functional equivalent of a caveman with a club." But while Trump has warned that law enforcement officials are pursuing the attackers, one Anonymous member unequivocally announced that still more attacks were planned. "This is NOT the last time you hear of this operation. We will be watching, and will act when the time is right."
How about Ted Cruz? (Score:2, Interesting)
As a run off the mill left-wing liberal, I'd say that slimy sneaky bastard Ted Cruz is by far more evil than Donald Trump. And so think most established Republicans.
Perhaps these anonymous script kiddies should have been thinking about that a bit more. Not that I appreciate their actions anyway, just saying...
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
But that's why Trump is winning - all the candidates suck, on both sides.
Trump is almost certainly the best candidate the GOP has. Think of all the other candidates for the GOP nomination. They're all losers. They all lost to Trump because they simply aren't as good as Trump.
Look at the Democrat's candidates: a felon and a communist. Does anyone seriously believe either of those candidates can win?!
The GOP is desperate to find a plausible candidate that isn't Trump, but they already failed to do that. It's
Re: (Score:3)
They all lost to Trump because they simply aren't as good as Trump.
OK, I am sure that had nothing to do with the fact that there 15 GOP candidates splitting the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, it is down to three. Kasich, Cruz and Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What specific parts of the 14th do you believe he disagrees with?
I disagree with Roe vs Wade, as it is murder to kill an unborn child.
I disagree with the recent spate of homosexual wedding rulings, because the word marriage is used, which is the name of a religious ceremony, and civil unions were already offered.
So, specifically what do you think he doesn't like?
The first amendment much the same, after all the left has been attacking free speech for years, so it isn't like they love that one either.
What about Ted Cruz? (Score:3)
This sort of abuse is what causes certain freedoms on the Internet to be curtailed or lost altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
The remainder of that sentence was superfluous.
Re: How about Ted Cruz? (Score:5, Interesting)
The perceived danger of Trump in a 4 years term is worse than the actual danger. He'll be fighting against establishment Republicans in congress and ALL Democrats. Without that support, he'll have a hard time abusing his executive powers like many of our Presidents have. One dangerous thing about him is he calls people on their shit, which is ironically what Anonymous is kinda known for. He's not even the front runner in the polls between Hillary and Trump.
Anonymous can waste their time on American politics, but this seems ridiculous when there are issues that inspire far more consensus. Also, Trump finds ways to turn negative actions against him into poll numbers, so I wonder how counter-productive this all is.
*with a tinfoil hat on head* Maybe this was all orchestrated by his campaign.
Re: (Score:3)
*with a tinfoil hat on head* Maybe this was all orchestrated by his campaign.
I've always thought he was working for Hillary anyways...
which means my steelfoil hat is better than your tinfoil hat...
http://www.amazon.com/Stainless-Unpolished-Finish-backing_type-Thickness/dp/B00CNLZJPA [amazon.com]
Re: How about Ted Cruz? (Score:1)
Presidential power(s) unrelated to congress (Score:4, Interesting)
The office of the president can exert power without the compliance of congress in the following areas:
1) Foreign policy
2) Arbitrary short term military action; "commander in chief" is not just a meaningless phrase
3) Executive orders (which is a pretty broad canvas to paint on...)
All of the above are potential sources of long term consequences in the areas of military action, social change, international trade and relations.
Having said that, I am very confident that no Republican of any stripe can win the presidency this time around. This is due to the torpedo-at-the-waterline that has been, and continues to be, Trump's effect on the Republican party. I see concern about presidential action by Republicans like Cruz and pseudo-Republicans such as Trump as something that be be safely deferred until the Republicans can rebuild their brand from the mess they've made out of it the last six years or so. I also suspect that will take them quite a while.
I do worry about having Clinton in there; she's Trump-lite as far as I'm concerned. It seems pretty clear from the media bias and the disruption of the Republican party's ability to be effective that it will be Clinton we end up with; the American public has a consistent history of going with what the media tells them. For a while, I nursed some hope that the ability to do one's own research becoming available to most via the Internet would change this, but I have seen very few such signs, and it's been around long enough that I think they would have been easily obvious by now if they were actually there.
Sanders still has a chance; but the odds are, at the very least, quite seriously stacked against him.
I'm most interested in the next iteration of congressional elections. Last time around, voter satisfaction was 14%, and re-election rates were 94%. Recent polling puts satisfaction with congress at this point even lower at 11%; I keep asking myself if that might be enough to make people actually realize that the problem is congress in general, and not "the other representatives in congress." I'd like to think so, but last election's set of numbers doesn't make me optimistic about it at all.
Interesting times, anyway.
Re:Presidential power(s) unrelated to congress (Score:4, Interesting)
In Trump's case, if he doesn't get the nomination he can always take his toys and his racist followers and screw up the presidential election for the Republicans. Depending on how vindictive he's feeling, he could also screw up the Congressional ones for them. Seems like a shitty position for Republican leadership to be in, but that's kind of what they get for not taking him seriously six months ago and coming up with some more appetizing candidates. I mean really, another Bush, the chick who drove HP into the ground and a handful of other bland dudes that no one likes very much? Fuck those guys.
Oh well, at least we know with Trump's popularity that it's the people speaking and not the money of a couple of cocks from Witicha. No matter how much money gets involved and no matter how shady the back room dealings are, it won't be enough to affect the course of this election.
Re:Presidential power(s) unrelated to congress (Score:4, Funny)
Well, that's a bit too narrow, don't you think? I mean, you're leaving out the xenophobes, the misogynists, the jingoists, the deluded, and those simple souls who are merely pathologically aggressive. Trump enjoys broad support all across these diverse categories.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest group of trump supporters are actually just anti-establishment supporters, they're not voting on him because they think he will do any good, but because they're sure he will fuck the system so hard it will have to fix itself.
He's the wigged nuke they're looking for.
And this is why every time some bad news about him appear, he gets more support. Because the nuke just gets bigger and more appealing.
Re: (Score:2)
"wigged nuke" :)
Re: (Score:2)
You are very correct. If these candidates are what our system provides us with as "choices" then may the best clown win.
I see voting for Trump a form of civil disobedience. After all, we can't vote for "none of the above acceptable" .
This will be the worst choice of candidates I have seen in my entire liife.
Re: Presidential power(s) unrelated to congress (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats are probably not going to kick a Democrat out of office and Republicans are probably not going to kick a Republican out of office.
Republicans are better at ousting the douchebags than Democrats are. They got rid of Eric Cantor, didn't they?
Re: Presidential power(s) unrelated to congress (Score:2)
Yes, and replaced him with... another douchebag.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, and replaced him with... another douchebag.
Clearly, you don't know shit about Dave Brat. You ignorant fucktard.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a douchebag like you.
I'm no douchebag.
I'm a shitass.
You fucktard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Presidential power(s) unrelated to congress (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the US, the 95th percentile (make more money than 95% of working adults) is $95k. When Bernie is talking about taxing the rich, he is talking about the working rich, not the idle rich that can easily up and move.
He is talking about the IT sector, where we mostly make over $95k. Do you really believe that making $95k makes you wealthy?
Re: (Score:2)
Will he? The setting of the political theatre in the US is that the Republicans oppose the Democrats. The two allying to fight Trump risks breaking the habit, and then what?
Trump is winning because his opponents are every bit as horrible people than him but he's more entertaining, so will these horrible people then risk their own political power to do the right thing for the country?
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI - Anonymous is run by a division of the CIA. It's not surprising that their efforts against Trump are lackadaisical - there are CIA assets (that aren't in Langley most of the time) that actually support Trump's efforts (if not is methods). And, of course, the CIA is currently in a proxy war with the Pentagon [latimes.com], which is vehemently opposed to Trump, because is clearly a problem for the Military Industrial Complex.
Oh, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pro Trump, Anti Trump, Trump Trump, Trump? Trump! TRUMP TRUMP TRUPM TRUPMUTRPRATRRUEMMP
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, President Trump will have them dispatched quickly.
Chyldoush (Score:1)
What do they hope to accomplish? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine what they could possibly do to derail Trump's campaign. Trump is not cowed by divulging his affairs - he's been a "reality" TV star, and his loud mouth has already exposed all manner of nastiness without derailing the campaign already. His websites are just that - websites. He likely doesn't rely on them either for getting out his message (the MSM is doing a fine job already) or for his business dealings, so shutting them down is useless.
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't. There's simply nothing that Anonymous can do to dissuade Trump's followers from following. And everyone else who might be swayed by anything they uncover is already swayed by the ranting that has already come out of Trump's mouth. I just don't see anywhere they can go from here.
Re: (Score:3)
It's Anonymous.
Basically, they announce that they're "at war" with someone.
The target gets crudely doxed by stuff you can find on the internet readily, maybe DDOS'ed for a day or two, then Anonymous's legion of script kiddies declare "victory".
Seriously, it's all quite snore-worthy.
Re: (Score:2)
His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't
and the scary thing is that there is no reason Democrats won't find that same personality appealing. Trump isn't conservative so once he gets into the general election he's likely to win by pulling in large numbers of Democrats and independents. He's already demonstrated he does much better in open primaries where non-Republicans can vote for him than he does in Republican-only primaries.
Re: (Score:2)
All true, but I did immediately wonder -- Cui bono?
Re:What do they hope to accomplish? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unless they can show that he really is part of the political establishment?"
This year, the most constructive way that Anonymous could turn the public off any candidate is to reveal corporate funding sources.
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit! The right wing has clearly documented exactly who has been buying Hilary, when, and for how much, and the "liberal establishment" has just gone "nuh uh, she's our crown prince". Why do you think Bernie and Trump are relevant? Because even right-wing idiots can see through the slimy politics.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they could give his bank account data to the Russian mafia..that would shut him up...or at least change his message.
Re: (Score:2)
He is the first to state that "the federal government can't own land beyond military bases and Washington, D.C. (sorry, but it's not true, federal land ownership went up for Supreme Court review three times, the first in the 1800's and has been upheld as Constitutional each time).
I'm not saying i agree with your friend, but your argument that "The Supreme Court says it therefor it is true" is a clear indication that you're not an independent thinker. Your friend has likely read the American Constitution and sees it as giving the federal government only those powers that are enumerated therein and doesn't see anything that allows the federal government to purchase land outside of D.C. and military bases. If the Supreme Court disagrees maybe the Supreme Court is wrong, and maybe it
Re: (Score:2)
But at least they can spell "they're" and "their", use a space bar, and a shift key,
Bunch of fucking crybullies (Score:1)
"I a weak-minded hypersensitive fool who can't handle what you're saying so I need to shut you up!"
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the reasoning is more along the lines of 1/2 of the US citenzenry are weak-minded fools, ignorant morons, and rascist twats, and they are eating up Trump's bullshit like its fine dining. To protect these idiots from themselves, and in turn protect ME from what they might do, we need to shut Trump up.
Not saying its the right course of action, but that's the reasoning.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"protect these idiots from themselves" ... "we need to shut Trump up"
Spoken like a dictator or an angry mob, which is what the left wing bashing of Trump looks like to the rest of us.
I actually didn't really care one way or the other for the Republican candidates this year, but with the crazy left wing reaction to Trump I've decided I need to vote for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
QQ
I said it was the reasoning being used. I didn't say I agreed with it.
As for Obama, whatever dude, trump is a basket case in a class of his own. Obama is just another politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting fire to the process (Score:5, Insightful)
All this "disrupt the process" behaviour is ridiculous.
It started with people at rallies shouting Trump down while he was trying to speak.
What's the point of that? You are so incensed and against that one candidate that you don't want the democratic process to happen?
This goes on for awhile, then protesters come to rallies and get manhandled by the supporters who actually want to listen to what he says.
Next, protesters come to rallies dressed as KKK members and are surprised when they get beat down?
Recently, a 15yo girl protester punched a supporter while he was turning away, got pepper sprayed for doing that... and tried to file sexual assault charges against him? (He was only exonerated because the incident was caught by security camera. And if it *hadn't*, that man's life would be completely ruined with no chance of redemption.)
Anonymous is so against Trump that they want to sabotage the democratic process by taking down his websites?
Elites are so against Trump that they are going against their "support the candidate, whoever he is" pledge? Rubio does not give up his delegates, even though he's out of the race? Delegates are allowed to be "faithless" and vote for whomever? Make an 8-state rule to exclude Ron Paul, but change it to allow Cruz in?
(Trump gets fed up with all of this, decides that if everyone else is breaking the pledge that he can also... and of course the media only reports that Trump broke his promise. Also, breaking that promise loses him delegates, but of course no one else loses *their* delegates for doing the same thing.)
I honestly think that if Trump has a clear majority of support (which seems likely) and doesn't get the nomination, through skulduggery (which is also likely) that there will be riots.
We're often told "it's our fault, we voted for him". If we actually vote for someone and he *doesn't* get in, it is completely rational and just to set fire to the process.
Really. This whole thing is ridiculous.
Re:Setting fire to the process (Score:4, Interesting)
All this "disrupt the process" behaviour is ridiculous.
Yeah, when I observe American politics this is what is broken, at every level, repeatedly...
The absolute inability of Americans to admit defeat in politics and then move on.. Instead you disrupt, derail and set fire to the process.
This is nothing new, it's been going on more extreme than ever throughout Obama's presidency... (I doubt he is to blame though).
And yet, the American voter is to blame for this, you've repeatedly voted for extremists this is what you get.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, the American voter is to blame for this, you've repeatedly voted for extremists this is what you get.
Hardly. The voter only gets two choices, and often they are both bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Next, protesters come to rallies dressed as KKK members and are surprised when they get beat down?"
No, they'll get a VIP backstage access card.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they'll get a VIP backstage access card.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:1)
>Recently, a 15yo girl protester punched a supporter while he was turning away, got pepper sprayed for doing that...
#feelthebern
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
However when it comes to the rules - an organization has a right to protect itself from outsiders who would come in and take over in order to use the organization for a completely different purpose. That's why the Republican party has rules that provide some protection for the establishment even while allowing for nominees to be elected. Many people have for years donated to, supported, and built the Rep
Re: Setting fire to the process (Score:2)
Thank you for saying it better than I personally could. It is real sad that such vast majority of people and media don't seem to have ant respect for the one thing that has made America the shining city on the hill namely democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
How could that be taken off the table? If they think Obama will do it, he has all the way up to when the next president is sworn in in January. And unless that president is Clinton, whoever is sworn in could pardon her too.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI is headed by a Republican who was nominated by Obama partially due to his threatening to resign his position in the Bush administration over wiretapping. The USDOJ is headed by a Democrat. USDOJ is responsible for bringing forth charges. Both report to the President although Comey has the position until 2023.
Here's some possible explanations for why Hillary hasn't been charged. In some of these cases the pardon isn't necessary and in some of these cases the pardon could be off the table once the pri
this War on Trump (Score:3)
So is it safe to assume... (Score:1)
...that Anonymous has finished dismantling ISIS, as they asserted they would do (before their Trump project)?
DDoS attacks? (Score:4, Informative)
How lame can you get. What a bunch of simple, skill-less cowards.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the idea. Anonymous is not really a hacker group. It is more like a human botnet.
Some people with good charisma and convincing arguments tell Anonymous to do something, and they do it. Instead of using malware to launch attacks, they provide "members" with simple tools such as LOIC. In the end, you have an effective attack, especially since some of them may have a bit more skill and are able to launch attacks a bit more subtle that simple flooding.
Re: (Score:2)
'Anonymous' is an idea, it does nothing, people use it to promote a political action and other people either join in or not. You can have a political act of 'Anonymous' of just one or of millions, it is the political act that counts and the people involved that counts and not 'Anonymous'. 'Anonymous' is just another vehicle for political activism that simply provides a level of protection for those participants. Any individual cause will either draw support or not. On average in can be seen that 'Anonymous'
Defeat of the geek (Score:1)
So, once again the Great Nerd Army of the Internet has been defeated. Beaten. Routed. Vanquished. Wiped the floor with. Humiliated. Curbsomped. Brown-swirlied.
Seriously, did anybody seriosly think it would go any different?
Anony-mouse has been defeated and crapped upon in each and every foolish endeavour it set itself up to, when they didn't simply shit their pants and give up (like that "big war" against the Zeta cartels. So tell me, anony-mice, did you defeated ISIS? Hm, no. Though you claimed you had "fo
What happened to Anonymous? (Score:4, Insightful)
When they first started Anonymous seemed really cool, fighting oppressive regimes etc.
What happened to turn them into a bunch of whiny asshats that supress free speech ad are only capapble of lame skript kiddy DDOS attacks?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Anonymous was pretty much always just a few leaders with skills and an army of lamers who could only DDOS or and shitpost. It's just that early on the leaders directed the lamers to more deserving targets.
There probably weren't that many of them. The GamerGate IRC logs show that most of the participating accounts were sock puppets. Chances are the DDOS attacks are mostly botnets.
It's owned by the FBI/CIA now (Score:2, Interesting)
Anything with the word "Anonymous" in the title can be directly translated to "FBI/CIA"
Sabu ratted out his comrades in order for a plea deal with the FBI - In exchange the FBI/CIA now own anonymous.
You'll notice a lot more politically motivated retarded shit from "FBI Anonymous now", like some retarded war on ISIS shit, and retarded war on Trump shit.
The real problem here is outlets like Slashdot and the mainstream media still pretend Anonymous is still the old Anonymous, when they know damn well that organ
Re: (Score:3)
Said Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't. A lot of people OUTSIDE OF AMERICA completely approve of Anonymous disrupting Trump's candidacy today, it's actually a good thing to do globally. But Americans are directly affected, so they feel offended and tal
what happened to the unicorns? (Score:1)
What kind of a fucking stupid thing to claim, that an undefined "group" of individuals who make random unrelated statements under the title of "anonymous" have any coherent position on any issue, that there is any normative behaviour typical to all those who claim the moniker, and that they have collectively and decidedly "turned into a bunch of whiny asshats".
You're more a tool than any I've seen on slashdot for a long time.
Of course there are asshats in "anonymous". There are all sorts of people. They hav
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it's like a gang, though there is no beating people up physically, there is no initiation, you don't know who the other thugs are... well most of the things a gang has. But they are part of something.
They could simply go to church instead.
Pffft. Anonymous..... PLEASE! (Score:1)
These punks are just big fat retards living in mommy's basement eating Cheetos. They are just a bunch of script kiddies,
I think the real story here is Anonymous itself. (Score:2)
Fascinating piece, and it's interesting to watch both the authoritarian faction within Anonymous and the Libertarian faction, which I would consider the "historical anonymous," that apparently still believes in truth without ideology. The Sanders supporting Anonymous vs. the Trump supporting Anonymous, to put it another way. And this incredible and noteable fight that's been raging within the group for the last five years. It seems so far, that neither side has been able to claim victory, and both sides kee
Futility and Stupid (Score:1)
I'm no Trump fan but DDOS site is just stupid. It's the juvenile equivalent of pulling a girls hair. Pathetic. Embarrassingly sad. That's the best they can do??
Re: (Score:2)
I think their agenda is this:
http://imgur.com/j95hMhn [imgur.com]
Re: freedumbs (Score:2)
Anonymous isn't a "real group," the same way that punk rock or heavy metal aren't real groups.
There's no official requirements, formal entry or leadership. But if Hillary or Donald came out tomorrow claiming to be "punk rock," you'd call bullshit.
As for their agenda, they mostly stand for freedom of information and crass humor. At least ... they used to. I've no idea what's been going on recently.
I'm honestly surprised that they didn't go after Cruz and Rubio for their recent anti- net neutrality stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since it's purportedly an anarchist disorganization, I guess it would have to be anti-democracy. (I'm assuming that you made a typo.) That's not a real argument, however, as we don't have a democracy. We purportedly have a representative Republic. Actually, that's pretty true, you just need to figure out who is being represented.
Re:freedumbs (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it be? Islam isn't a race. Even though I'm an atheist, it bugs the shit out of me that ultra liberals will bash Christians just for being Christians, but if you bash a Muslim even if they do their backwards third world shit (i.e. women in burkas) then you get an earful from ultra liberals about how it's racist.
Re:freedumbs (Score:5, Informative)
"Why would it be? Islam isn't a race"
Whenever a terrorist atrocity occurs, we are piously lectured to about not judging all Muslims by a small minority of terrorist radicals. Yet whenever some nutbar shoots up a school, the same pious lecturers claim he represents all gun owners.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, just like people who want the country protected from illegal immigrant leechers and criminals are seen as racists.
Re: (Score:2)
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Please, show me where that says anything about restricting access to guns, or making guns harder to own. If you fail to understand basic english, perhaps you shouldn't be pushing for new laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell you what, let's compromise: how about we ban guns and Muslims?
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm.. meanwhile, in the rest of the world, it's islam.
Of course, the real issue is certain brands of irrational belief being defended or attacked by other brands of irrational ideology.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you like them apples?
We don't. At this point, most of us are tired of all organized religions, but radical Islam is by far the greatest threat to the West, so it must be destroyed first.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't assume that I'm defending Christians, because I'm not. What irks me is that if you speak against Islam, you get shouted down, whereas speaking against Christianity is perfectly acceptable. Take this for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Yet the ones who walked off the stage about a very mild remark about Islam routinely bash Christians.
Scott Adams' view (Score:4, Insightful)
Scott Adams had an interesting take [dilbert.com] on extremism.
If you frame the argument as a disease it becomes non-prejudicial. Describe extremism as a disease, note that there are hotspots of this disease in specific locations of the world, and what is a common-sense reaction?
Imagine that the tiny nation of Elbonia suffers a Zombie Virus outbreak. Luckily, the virus does not spread easily, but prolonged personal contact with an infected zombie increases the odds of transmission. Once infected, the Elbonian becomes a zombie killer. As it turns out, most people are immune to the virus. Over 99% of the public have no risk of catching it. But 1% is far too many zombie killers.
For starters, they would quarantine the entire nation of Elbonia to limit the damage. This is obviously unfair to all uninfected Elbonians but it is also the only practical way to protect the rest of the world. Once the quarantine is in place, the professionals can get to work on a cure.
The problem is, of course, the emotional baggage. If someone tries to talk logically about certain subjects, they can be shouted down simply by being called bad names.
This is how "extreme rhetoric" has become the new clickbait, and how people like Anonymous take it upon themselves to save the world from Trump. This is how a 15yo girl can accuse a Trump supporter of molesting her at a rally, when the video showed no such action.
It's the emotional baggage. People hear "racist" or whatever, close their minds, and let their outrage have free reign.
They believe they are working for the greater good.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, many of us already know that religion is a mental disease. It's a kind of addiction to wishful thinking that rots your logical thinking skills and causes you to be susceptible to commands phrased as wishes from the godhead and priests. But it's a dangerous view because there are too many infected IN AMERICA who deny that they have a problem (kind of like alcohol addiction etc). The majority of infected in America will actively prevent the deployment of scientific methods addressing religious delusions
Re: (Score:3)
I think most epidemiologists would agree that prevention is at least as important as finding a "cure", if not more-so.
One of the best tools we have is education. The more people understand the causes and potential risk factors of infection, the more they can be mitigated. Even fairly simple ideas, when in widespread use, can have a profound impact (e.g. washing your hands to prevent the spread of influenza). A broader understanding (and even sympathy) by people in general can go a long way to fighting an ep
Re: (Score:2)
If cartoonists etc aren't up to the task, why are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Denis Leary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, really?
It sounds like you're either speaking about a specific person who's a nutcase or you're referring to some weirdass invention which doesn't actually exist en masse.
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas Christians have earned their reputation for being against evolution or in thinking the Earth is 6k years old because they have noisily fought those battles.
You mean like the pope coming out and supporting evolution? You yourself are talking a very small percentage of Christians and labeling all Christians with the same title. It is just as bigoted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: freedumbs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. I bet, however, that they'd be able to DOS it quite effectively.
Re: (Score:1)
Sanders FTW !!!
Re: (Score:1)