This news article was cracking me up today! It was the first news link in my yahoo mail account when I logged in. Basically, Al-Qaida’s top spokesman commented on our media outlets and thanks to him, we now know that “ABC News” is essentially Al-Qaida-approved!!! Hahah! That’s right, the terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11 says the following: “ABC channel is all right; actually it could be one of the best channels, as far as we are concerned.” – One of the best channels as far as they’re concerned, meaning for their “purposes…” Hahaha!
I dunno if the author of this article is trying to smear Fox News, because that is the quote that he picked out of this report to title his article with. There are many interpretations, such as, is it bad to be hated or considered an enemy by a terrorist group hell-bent on our destruction? Or, are we supposed to agree with Al-Qaida when they tell us that Fox News isn’t neutral or “useful enough” ?? Is the joke supposed to be about the media outlets that the terrorists approve/like or is it supposed to be that, “See, see, I told ya, I told ya, even Al-Qaida doesn’t think Fox News is fair and balanced!!!” Anyhow, we know how much the American Left and democrats hate Fox News, and now we know that they have an ally in their hate, Al-Qaida!! It’s all about finding common ground with our worst enemies, you know?? Hahah!
Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Are you worried?
Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.
“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.
He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.
The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.
It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.
The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.
The eco/enviro-Marxists (AKA ‘watermelons’ = enviro-green on the outside, communist red on the inside) have suffered a great defeat in their attempts to deceive and scare-monger the world into “changing its ways” by claiming that “global warming” is anthropogenic, the result of human activity that causes the release of carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other “greenhouse gases”, etc. Since they’re Marxist malcontents at heart, their prescription for a solution is always the same: bigger, badder government to control economic activity, which means more regulations and taxes.
The hoax/scam of anthropogenic global warming has raked in billions of dollars in taxes, grants, carbon credit/trade utter nonsense, etc. so when the climategate scandal hit, you knew these freaks would dig in and downplay its significance, but I don’t think they’re gonna get away with it. Not this time. Anyway, I’ve linked and pasted a good article about this below.
“As the science scandals keep coming, the air has gone out of the climate-change movement”
In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.
These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia’s nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country’s plight, Nepal’s top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.
But the claim was rubbish, and the world’s top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.
“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.
The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.
And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.
Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian – among the most aggressive advocates for action on climate change – has found that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed, and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.
For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri’s own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.
Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain’s Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri’s resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.
None of this is to say that global warming isn’t real, or that human activity doesn’t play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren’t valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.
By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they’ve discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.
“I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.” In his view, it’s time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.
The neo-Marxist Left and other assorted, perpetually malcontent douchebags of the American Left, are upset that somebody dared to depict this miserable failure of a president (THAT’S RIGHT, I SAID IT! HE’S A MISERABLE FAILURE!) as The Joker, the Batman villain from the recent movie The Dark Knight. All I have to say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Eh, on second thought, I DO have more to say… It’s soooo damn close to reality… I mean for one thing, this man doesn’t have very many normal friends; most seem to be societal malcontents, especially the two communist-terrorists, Billy “the bombthrower” Ayers and his wife Bernadine whose terror group was responsible for BOMBING the Pentagon, the Capitol, etc. I’ve been saying and thinking it for a long time: he’s got the same chip on his shoulders as all the radicals that he hung out with, it’s just that he hid it very well and with a lapdog media on his side, he was able to roll right into the WhiteHouse… These friends of his are and always were a roadmap towards understanding who he is and what’s lurking inside that head of his, something we’re learning more and more as his horrifying presidency unfolds!
Now, how upset do you think the little darlings were when their comrades of Vanity Fair did the same fucking thing to the previous president? Scroll down to the second picture. I bet they had a real good laugh at that Bush picture, but I also bet that NOW the joke isn’t funny anymore, right? You can hear them now: This is an OUTRAGE, mean-spirited, dangerous, you rabid right-wingers need to stop that shit! No, we’re not gonna stop that shit; what we’re gonna do is come out in droves and vote as if our very lives depended on it in the 2010 elections to save the fucking country from this nightmare! Yesss, nightmare! There is a very good chance republicans can win back the House of Representatives from the freaks, so there is light at the end of the tunnel, but it’s ~15 months away…
I just love biting sarcasm and this little excerpt I ran into is great!
Poor Pirate Bay, all it ever wanted to do was thumb its nose at the music and movie industries, enable software piracy for people all over the world, play cat-and-mouse games with the Swedish authorities, and maybe make a little money along the way. Now, hot on the heels of a verdict that sees four of its founders headed to prison (that is, if they don’t win their appeals) three of the group have been ordered by a court in the Netherlands to block all traffic between the site and its country. If this doesn’t happen in the next ten days, each of the defendants faces a charge of €30,000 ($42,000) for each day they don’t comply. According to the AP, it’s “not clear how the court expected the site’s operators to block traffic to the site, or whether it can enforce its order if they decline,” but soon it looks like the Dutch just might have to learn to buy their Rave Or Die! Mix Series CDs at the Record Exchange like the rest of us. Good luck going legit, guys!
Back in April I made a little post about a Swedish court having brought down the hammer of justice on four Pirate Bay founders. A little butt-pirate darling was irritated by that post and said the following:
They will be found innocent upon appeal. The are no more guilty of a crime that the founders of EBay or Google. Simply hosting a site is not a crime, and a judge that understands more than ‘a series of tubes’ will get it. You, who parade around in your underware denouncing them as criminals, should have more care about what you call a crime. If you have an automobile you could be found guilty of ‘providing the possibility of a getaway’ by your own reasoning.
You gotta love the guy for trying to pawn off such disingenuous comparisons to a search engine (even an auction site) with a straight face… Heh-heh.
Well, so far, not so good for our beloved Butt-Pirate Bay and its founders. Awwwww. =(
This is a great political critique by Karl Rove I had to share. The American Left and democrats turned Karl Rove into a great demon of our time, so it’s nice to see him mixing it up these days and fighting back. At any rate, he nails Bolshevik Barack-Iraq NOT-THAT-HUSSEIN/NOT-THAT-OSAMA Obama-YoMama-Alabama-Havana pretty good with this so here it is:
Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.
For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush’s military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an “enormous failure” and a “legal black hole.” His campaign claimed last summer that “court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists.” Upon entering office, he found out they aren’t.
He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate “consequences” for “a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones” on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now’s he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a “quagmire” and ordered more troops to that country. He isn’t calling it a “surge” but that’s what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.
These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.
We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.
Mr. Obama campaigned on “responsible fiscal policies,” arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the “rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy.” In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to “go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work.” Even now, he says he’ll “cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office” and is “rooting out waste and abuse” in the budget.
However, Mr. Obama’s fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government’s share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.
On health care, Mr. Obama’s election ads decried “government-run health care” as “extreme,” saying it would lead to “higher costs.” Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, “It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system.”
Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama’s flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.
In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called “the projection of appealing images.” All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image “becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself.” Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.
Mr. Obama’s appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America’s security interests.
Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.
Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
Dammit! I really had grown fond of this show so I’m purty depressed about it. Looks like another 2 season run like “Dark Angel,” another show I once liked that FOX axed…
Well, I did what I could by a) directing some hits to the finale, b) emailing WB’s Scott Rowe and AskFox and c) I also recently purchased the season one DVD set for $19.99 over at Walmart. Never really did any of that for a show, it just turned out that way. I don’t get to watch TV anymore, haven’t for many years, but recently I discovered hulu.com so I catch up with some long lost TV shows through that, as well as some new ones, time permitting…
Being a fan of the Terminator franchise, it was only natural for me to have some interest in checking out T:SCC. Definitely wanted to see how the movies would translate to a TV series and I, for one, was very pleased with the result. It’s a shame that it only lasted two seasons, with season one only consisting of 9 episodes…
When the UK audience got their first glimpse at Susan Boyle, they chuckled at her appearance and smirked when she spoke. But, when she began to sing, the audience at Britain’s Got Talent — and across the world, watched with mouths open in awe.
Watch the 47 year old church worker, turned overnight sensation shock you, just as she did the audience and judges, including Simon Cowell.
OK, this was quite the underdog story that caught my attention. There’ve actually been over 118 million cumulative hits on this video within the past two weeks… So what’s the big deal? Well, here walks out this 47 year old lady, a tad awkward, goofy, perfectly nice no doubt, but most likely was gonna make a fool of herself judging by her demeanor… or, so you thought… I too, just as the audience, was predicting/expecting failure and laughter to follow. She was all too easy to underestimate… But, who would’ve guessed she had quite a pair of lungs on her like that? Man, I haven’t seen something so interesting and captivating to watch like this in a long time. These talent shows are pretty awesome for moments like these, I gotta say!
Simon Cowell, the British-accented and sometimes condescending talent judge of television’s mega-hit program “American Idol,” is also one of the judges on “Britain’s Got Talent” who heard Boyle’s rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream.”
”I’m thrilled to bits for her,” Cowell told TV Guide. “That’s why I love making these shows. You can’t plan for it.”
Altered “I Dreamed a Dream” Lyrics
I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high and life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving
Then I was young and unafraid
When dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted
But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hopes apart
As they turn your dreams to shame
And still I dream he’d come to me
That we would live our lives together
But there are dreams which cannot be
And there are storms we cannot weather
I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I’m living
So different now from what it seems
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed
Without a doubt, the absolute money shot is 2:00 minutes into the video where Simon’s eyebrows go up after Susan sings the first line, “I dreamed a dream in time gone by” making it abundantly clear she wasn’t going to be another trainwreck for the public’s amusement. Nope, quite the opposite in fact, much to everyone’s surprise…
Well, the rumor on the street is that FOX has terminated TSCC, a TV series that I recently have come to enjoy… I really hope the pessimists come out wrong, but the truth is that the ratings haven’t been good, at least the ones that count: Nielsen. It’s apparently done well when it comes to online viewership with sites like hulu.com, which is where I watched all of season 2, but unfortunately, this doesn’t count much as far as the bottom line is concerned. While typing this up, however, I did find an article that offered up some kind of hope: a scoop claiming that Halcyon and Warner Brothers have been quietly shopping TSCC around since the consensus, pretty much, is that FOX will be wiping its hands clean of this show… Negotiations are supposedly taking place with the SciFi channel so the show may continue on there, assuming ANY of this is accurate…
Anyway, I put up a pretty cool fan trailer if you’re unfamiliar with the series and some links where you can watch the season 2 finale, or what likely might be more accurately referred to as the series finale. Season 2, Episode 21′s “Born to Run” finale was pretty damn good and I wanted to direct some hits either to FOX’s site or hulu.com just in case it helps avoid the cancellation many of the chattering classes believe is coming. We’ll know for sure on May 18 though, when FOX announces its Fall schedule… (C’mon FOX, don’t forget the new Terminator 4: Salvation movie starring Christian Bale is due out this summer! If that’s a blockbuster and likely will be, surely it’d help the ratings of this series next time around, no?)
[SPOILER WARNING]
In this final episode, we learned for sure whose side the advanced, liquid metal, shape-shifting T-1001 model was on (played by Shirley Manson, of the Scottish band ‘Garbage’)… Her true agenda, motives, etc. was kept slightly ambiguous throughout the series by way of the fact that, well, she killed a lot of humans, and in some cases, rather creatively… Bottom line, it was a hell of a finale with plenty of action, and it left open many questions and possibilities; it definitely wasn’t written to be a series finale, that’s for sure. Anyhow, I invite you to watch it, if you would; it can’t hurt the chances of the show being saved.
(Unfortunately, you only get to watch these streamed episodes if your IP is of US origin; you’ll be blocked otherwise.)
This is the lovely Summer Glau of “Firefly” fame as well as the “Serenity” movie which was based on the same short-lived series. In TSCC, she plays a female terminator sent back to protect John Connor. Awwwww, isn’t she so cute there??
“STOCKHOLM – Four men linked to a popular file-sharing pirating site The Pirate Bay were convicted Friday of breaking Sweden’s copyright law by helping millions of users freely pirate music, movies and computer games on the Internet.
The Stockholm district court sentenced Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundstrom to one year each in prison.
They were also ordered to pay damages of 30 million kronor ($3.6 million) to a series of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI and Columbia Pictures.
The Pirate Bay provides a forum for its estimated 22 million users to download content through so-called torrent files. The site has become the entertainment industry’s enemy No. 1 after successful court actions against file-swapping sites such as Grokster and Kazaa.
Defense lawyers had argued the quartet should be acquitted because The Pirate Bay doesn’t host any copyright-protected material. Instead, it provides a forum for its users to download content through so-called torrent files. The technology allows users to transfer parts of a large file from several different users, increasing download speeds.
The court found the defendants guilty of helping users commit copyright violations “by providing a Web site with … sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and through the tracker linked to the Web site.”
The court hearings, which ended March 3, renewed debate about file-sharing in Sweden, where many defend the right to swap songs and movies freely on the Internet. Critics say that Swedish authorities caved in to pressure from the U.S. when they launched the crackdown on The Pirate Bay in 2006.
The Pirate Bay’s supporters set up a Web site dedicated to the trial, and the defendants sent updates from the court hearings through social network Twitter.
The defendants said before the verdict that they would appeal if they were found guilty.”
Awwwwwwwwww. The poor little darlings were convicted and are headed to jail (hey, come to think of it, I can think of another Swede in particular that ought share a jail cell with these boys, heh-heh. *ahem* AHOY ALOY *ahem*)… Tsk. Tsk. In addition, these Swedish warez butt-pirating degenerates will be “forced” to pay millions in cash… The worst possible punishment I would say since it runs contrary to everything that they believe in… Hehe. But then, how does the court expect these fine gentlemen to come up with that kind of cash? They ran a warez pirating outfit, duh, which essentially is a defacto war on selling/profit/capitalism; they don’t make money, they cost OTHER people money… It’s all about making commercial digital products FREE-FREE-FREE at somebody else’s expense for warez butt-pirating degenerates everywhere!!! There’s usually no profit in that equation; only loss, wealth destruction as far as the victims are concerned… Don’t tell me they were actually somehow profiting off of such an operation and that now they’ll have to surrender much, if not all, of the gains that they had made… Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww… It breaks my heart, I tells ya… How tragic..
I’m especially amused by the weasel defense that they tried to pawn off: “You see, your honor, it’s like this, *we* only host torrent links and NOT the actual copyrighted material!!! Yeah, OK, technically those links help somebody pirate copyrighted material so we’re merely aiding’n'abetting in piracy, however, the choice to actually pirate is in the user’s hands!! Hahahhhaha, yeah, you see? We’re innocent, we never ONCE hosted copyrighted material on our servers!!! C’mon, you hypocrite, I bet you’ve downloaded an MP3 or two in your lifetime, and hell, who hasn’t!! Let us off the hook, dammit!!! Purty-please!! Hey, we’ll hook you up with LOTS of great software/games/music, whatever you want!!! hehehehehehehehehehheh” – Hey, degenerates, did you forget what you actually named your site, you know, “The Pirate Bay?” Not very helpful to your argument, I’m afraid…
Anyhow, it sure is nice to see that justice has been brought to bear against bastards like this… It hardly ever happens, and this sense of “you always get away with it, nobody will come after you” has created a brazen, arrogant, warez culture where you’ll see douche bags actually bragging about what they pirated today, like they’re cool and edgy for having fucked someone over (I’m sure you’ve seen some of those idiots around and know EXACTLY what I’m talking about…), so really, it’s about time victims of piracy smack some of these assholes back and stuff ‘em in a jail cell where they belong… Hmmm, “butt-pirates” sent to jail and perhaps running into traditional butt-pirates, as in, bend over, you’re *my* biotch now?? I smell some irony here! Heh.
Try as I might, I have no sympathy for these four ass clowns. They’re asking for it… They’re cocky, proud, arrogant, unremorseful, without any regard/concern for the damages that they’ve done to their victims, etc.. They’re sociopaths in that way; they even consider themselves “heroes.” Yesssss, warez heroes, to be exact – I know one of those myself (e.g. GF_Alt). I’m quite familiar with the concept nowadays… One who enjoys/takes pleasure in plundering somebody else’s hard work on behalf of the freeloading, thankless, spoiled masses out there… Normally, warez heroes get away with their crimes, that is, normally these assholes elude justice… NORMALLY, but NOT today, not in the case of these four!!!! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is just PLAIN FUCKING AWESOME to see in my view… These four assholes, when hopefully their appeals fail, won’t be laughing that much longer despite the pretenses that they put up for their “fans” right now. Even if they win, all that trouble that they’ve been put through, the legal expenses that they’re having to bear, the burden overall, etc., they’re learning what it feels like being on the receiving end of their bullshit. Rot in jail you fucking assholes! ROT IN FUCKING JAIL!
Posted by NightWolve 
Category: 
