Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Internet Identity Theft

This is topic Internet Identity Theft in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/642.html

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

I hear that this new guy who ripped off a bunch of Hollywood's Liberal Elite in this latest scam was a busboy in New York.

I'm still waiting for them all to come out and plead that he not be prosecuted, since he was simply doing to them on his own what they want to do to US with taxes... redistributiuon of the rich folks' wealth to the poor. So he chose a more direct method.. so what?

Right?

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Well, neglecting that he went about it illegally ...

"Hollywood Liberal Elite." Wow. Who coined that term?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 22, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

If it was the Communist Elite, then I'd understand what you're saying.

But since I'm a liberal, and since I don't think that way (I'd prefer narrowing the gap between the rich and poor, but not obliterating it completely), I don't know what you're saying.

------------------
"Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years."
- Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15

[This message has been edited by Tahna Los (edited March 22, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I used to beleive in narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, but it was when I still belonged to the latter, now that I'm in the former, I say forget it, I like being rich. If a bus-boy decides to steal, the he should be punished, because rich people don't get where they are by having an easy job like a bus-boy, but they do it with education and hard work, if he decides to play Robin Hood he should pay the price.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

See, if the Hollywood liberals were as liberal as they pretend to be, they wouldn't mostly live in multi-million dollar gated mansions with heavily-armed security, and wouldn't take eleventy-zillion dollars per picture and keep it all for themselves.

I don't see any of 'em saying "I wanna pay more taxes! I wanna do MY part to help out the lower class with all my vast estates! Come on in! TAKE MY MONEY AWAY!!!"

Entertainment? Yeah, entertainment, they like giving that to the lower class. Keeps 'em distracted. Who can think about their pocketbook when there's a good talk show / awards show / game show on?

No, they're just like the conservatives when it comes to their money. If it'll make them look good, they'll donate to charity, but otherwise, it's 'hands off my money, I'ma buy me some houses on both coasts and huge tracts of land in isolated countryside.'

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 22, 2001).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

What bizarre traumas forced you into such a byzantine universe, First?

------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

That came out more snarky than I had intended it to be.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Is snarky a word?

------------------
The negotiations have failed. Shoot him!
~ C. Montgomery Burns

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

There's a difference between "liberal" and "communist", First. Not all liberals have to be communists -- they just have to pay more percent-wise taxes than the less-rich. Maybe you should learn that difference?

Speaking of which, you seem to have bought into the "left wing conspiracy" theory banted around by AM radio nuts. You sure all of 'em were liberal? Or are you just assuming that Democrat = liberal again? (Speaking of which, you're a registered Democrat, aren't you? You liberal!) And, for that matter, how do you know what these celebrities are registered as? Do you even have a good reason to assume they're either Democrats or liberals, or do you just make the assumption that Hollywood = Liberal scum?

***

No entry found for "snarky" in the dictionary.

Suggestions:

snaky
sparky
snarly
Snaky
Snary
snaky
snarly
snark

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 23, 2001).]

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

JK: you took the words right out of my mouth....

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Actually, I quit being a registered Demoncrat shortly after the election.

Conspiracy? No. Rampant stupidity, yes.

Hollywood follows the Liberal Cause-of-the-Week. You've got some of them supporting ALF (which 'releases' lab animals into environments they're not suited for, and which may carry diseases), ELF (those arsonists who want us all to live in hutches like hobbits), Gun Banning (not control, outright banning), Hard-Core environmentalism (without understanding anythng behind it), Free Mumia (a man guilty as sin, sorry), Pot (Thanks, Woody, we really need that), et cetera ad nauseum.

You can't say that they don't, with so many celebrities making arses of themselves in the news for such things all the time.

I'm not pointing out any conspiracy, I'm pointing out the hypocracy. I do the same with a group in my area, a bunch called the Hutterian Brethren, who live in an isolated commune up in the mountains, but come down every so often to march against the death penalty. And I'm sorry, but people who live in isolated, gated, utopian little communities shouldn't try to dictate polict to those of us who live in the REAL world.

Celebrities who support animal rights should be vegans who don't wear leather or fur or use ANY product made in any way from animals.. including gelatins. Environmentalists shouldn't live in large sprawling houses, or use any product the manufacture of which has any effect on the environment (which means.. ALL of them). Gun banners shouldn't have well-armed security crawling all over them. Being otherwise and still supporting these causes is hypocritical.

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 23, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Are you certain the specific people victimized by this person were democrats? If so, are you certain that they're liberal?

If I recall correctly, Oprah Winfrey was one of those people who were robbed by this person. Now, wait, she's not that woman who had Dubya on her show, is she? Gasp! That wouldn't be the show that started a rise in his popularity, would it? GASP! Please, Rob, please, show a link between the people victimized and their being Democrats. Then, show that they're liberal.

Liberalism is a vast net which encompases many special interest groups. Although I'm a liberal, I'm not particular interested in ALF or ELF one way or the other. The Mumia movement (another I don't agree with), wants a new trial -- not freedom outright. And the thing with Pot again, really, there's another thread devoted to drugs -- go look there, huh?

quote:
Celebrities who support animal rights should be vegans who don't wear leather or fur or use ANY product made in any way from animals.. including gelatins.

Although I'm not a celebrity, and I'm not a vast supporter of animal rights (I hold off that the watant abuse of animals is wrong, and the food-processing industry should be investigated for that; that pets should be neutered to keep the dog & cat population down; & that pet owners who abuse their pets should be tossed in jail), but I don't use geletins. I do have a leather coat, but since I'm also a big fan of a double quarter pounder with cheese and not a vegan, this isn't hipocracy.

quote:
Environmentalists shouldn't live in large sprawling houses,

Even when made of synthetic material? But again, I don't live in a large, sprawling house, I live in a tiny apartment. And enviornmentalism is more geared towards making sure that replinshment of the enviornment goes on. Look at Peru: chopping down so much of their rainforest for more farm-land because they fail to let their farmlands go "fallow" for a few years, thus rendering the land un-farmable and forcing them to cut down more rainforest for more farmland which they're going to fuck up the same damn way.

quote:
Gun banners shouldn't have well-armed security crawling all over them.

I would agree. But then again, there's a difference between the run of a mill "I just turned 21!" kid buying a gun and someone like a police officer or ex-military man knowing how to actually use a gun and being available for security reasons.

quote:
Being otherwise and still supporting these causes is hypocritical.

So in other words, the whole purpose of this thread was to bash liberals? How childish.

Heather's a friend of mine. She goes to JHU. Her dad's an investment banker in New York. Conservative guy -- blew a gasket when he saw my "Gore 2000" sticker on my Jeep. Church going, whole nine-yards. Yet, he offered to pay for Heather's abortion because "he didn't want some nigger bastard in the family" (oh, I should mention, she's a liberal, her b/f is black, and she refused to have an abortion -- he's 6 months old now -- but that didn't stop Daddy dearest the "god-fearing" conservative from pushing the money on her), his favorite saying is "bet you're glad you're not a nigger, 'cuz the klan is getting bigger", and ... did I mention he's a conservative? How hypocritical.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 23, 2001).]

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Jeff, First is pointing out that there are multitude of Hollywood people out there who are hypocritical. I'm sure we can name a long list of celebrities who fit the profile First gave. Here you can only find...one?

Secondly, he's talking about celebrities. Last I knew, you weren't famous for anything. I don't think delivering pizzas is enough to make you a celebrity.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

*ahem*

a) If First can furnish proof that the celebrities involved actually are registered Democrats, that would be one thing. So far, he's just equating "celebrity" with "hollywood" and "liberal."

b) The point of the example I gave, is that just because someone calls themselves something does not mean that they are.

And when I sell my script to Star Trek: Enterprise, I'll be that much closer to fame ...

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Hypocracy? Rule by people who don't practise what they preach? Actually, that's what we have now. 8)

------------------
"Kif, I have made it with a woman! Inform the crew!"

- Zapp Brannigan

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

I know a person that had a really cool quote for his sig:
Democracy is like religion, where jackals are worshipped by jackasses.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

A fav of mine is:

In the interests of bipartisanship, I'll hug your elephant if you'll kiss my ass.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Yes, but only MY sig has been true for around a thousand years...

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Hmmm.

Let's see. In the eight years Bill Clinton and Al Gore were running the country, unemployment dropped from 7.1 percent to 4;

the poverty rate dropped to 12.7 percent from the 15.1 percent it was under Bush Sr.;

the Dow Jones Industrial Average went from 3,242 to 11,000; the median family income rose from $33,839 to 38,885 (adjusted for inflation);

the defecit went from $290 billion to a projected surplus of $211 billion (kiss that good-bye now that the Bushies are in charge);

the national debt was $1 trillion accumulated by Presidents Washington through Carter, then climbed to $4 trillion under Reagan and Bush, and now is on it's way out in 12 years (well, was, again, kiss that goodbye b/c of the Bushies -- hell, the man couldn't even keep Texas' surplus -- I'd never let the man balance my checkbook);

22 million new jobs were created with Bill Clinton and Al Gore running the country. Home ownership rates are at an all-time high. Minority unemployment rates are at an all-time low.

If this is a meddling, unefficient government which only dissapoints, then the reason it does so is because it clearly shows that the country is better off with Democrats in office.

Now for my Bush rant.

quote:
Now you, as a mere citizen, might look at the economic performance and think: Maybe we're heading in the right direction. Oh, but you dear reader, are not possessed of the uncanny intellect and keen insight of George W. Bush. He can see behind the facade of the numbers and conclude that we should reverse our course.
He calls for "Prosperity with a Purpose." But what's his purpose, you ask? To make the rich even richer, and keep the rest of us in our place.
George W. Bush's economic plan is a return to the trickle-down days of the 1980s. He wants to cut taxes for the rich, gut the social safety net, turn more and more power over to giant corporations, and limit the rights of working people. W is so 1980s, he even had KC and the Sunshine Band play at his Washington fund raiser. You half expect him with his hair slicked back a-la Gordon Gekko bellowing, "Greed is good!"
You're reading this and you're thinking: Didn't we try this before? And didn't all that trickle down result in a few rich folks and corporations getting the gold mine while the rest of us get the shaft? Didn't those Reagan-Bush economic policies run up the debt, cripple our competitiveness, and drive us into a recession?
But here again, you lack the raw (if unappreciated) genius of George W. Bush. He's thinking, Maybe if we try it again it'll work the second time. Kind of like someone in a lifeboat from the Titanic saying, "Gee, I hope we hit another iceburg."
My friend and former boss, Bill Clinton, likes to say that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
But I'll give this to Bush: he's hell-bent on giving Trickle Down II (or, as Poppy might call it, "Voodoo Re-Do") a try.
-Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?

Hey, I figure since First can't back up his liberal bashing, we might as well make this a Dubya bashing thread ...

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]

Posted by MC Infinity (Member # 531) on :

The median income is 38K? Is that averaged out by the homelles that make nothing?
I don't know anyone that makes less than that, infact the poorest people I know have 45k a year.

------------------
"Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"

-Nimrod 16/4/2001

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

When these things happened is irrelevant, Jeff. I would point out that during the supposedly horrible Bush/Reagan years, the Democrats controlled Congress. And I would also point out that the GOP controlled Congress during all the supposedly wonderful time of the Clinton administration. I could argue that CONGRESS, not the President, is responsible for the state of the nation, and have just as valid a point as you. Meaning, not valid at all.

Trace all prosperity and problems back to their root causes. The question is WHY, not who happened to be where.

Yeah, sure, we had a great economy under Clinton for the first seven years, but was it BECAUSE of Clinton? Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc? Classic logical falacy.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yes, but one the people listen too. When Bush gets his ass kicked out in four years, it'll be because of the economy

And the Republicans didn't control Congress during the first two years of Clinton's term. Enough time for the Democrats to make sure the Republicans couldn't endanger the economy. Hell -- those 'pubies were so bored, they came up with that unconstitutional Contract with America. Remember that?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Ah, yes, the horrible Reagan years, when all the Yuppies who were making high-paying jobs straight out of college... oh, wait.

As for the deficit, every idiot knows why that happened, and it wasn't Star Wars.

If you cut revenues, but don't cut spending, you run up a deficit.

Reagan, surfing on his popularity (Remember how many states Mondale carried?), got a Democratic-controlled Congress to cut taxes. A pretty high achievement in and of itself, because lowering taxes on ANYBODY is anathema to what the Democratic party stands for. (You ask how I know it's anathema? Because no Democrat brought it up until the Bush tax cut promise got him elected, even though the surplus was forseen WAY back several years before the 2000 election.)

However, he was unable to force the same congress to cut spending (the other half of the Democratic Ideal), as he wanted to. Hence the deficit ballooned.

"the poverty rate dropped to 12.7 percent from the 15.1 percent it was under Bush Sr.; the Dow Jones Industrial Average went from 3,242 to 11,000; the median family income rose from $33,839 to 38,885 (adjusted for inflation);"

thanks to preexisting policies, not to mention redefinitions of certain things like "the poverty level."

"And the Republicans didn't control Congress during the first two years of Clinton's term. Enough time for the Democrats to make sure the Republicans couldn't endanger the economy."

Yeah... because the Democrats had already done that by passing the largest tax hike in HISTORY... which is what GOT the Republicans control of Congress in the FIRST place. Though admittedly that didn't do much good because Clinton vetoed everything, and there were still too many Demoncrats in Congress to override the veto.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

quote:
Yeah... because the Democrats had already done that by passing the largest tax hike in HISTORY... which is what GOT the Republicans control of Congress in the FIRST place. Though admittedly that didn't do much good because Clinton vetoed everything, and there were still too many Demoncrats in Congress to override the veto.

Yes, but is it adjusted for inflation?

Well of course they passed a tax hike. Time to pull the nation out of the problem -- and they did. You yourself just admitted the Republicans "didn't do much good", so what other conclusion is there but that the Democrats are responsible for the good health of the economy?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Rob:

If you cut revenues, but don't cut spending, you run up a deficit.

True, but you have to remember, during Reagan, revenues WEREN'T cut. In fact, they nearly doubled. The problem was with rampant OVERSPENDING, not with the income. And who controlled spending? The Democrats, of course.

JK:

the Republicans didn't control Congress during the first two years of Clinton's term. Enough time for the Democrats to make sure the Republicans couldn't endanger the economy

Please, how did they do this mythical thing?

Well of course they passed a tax hike. Time to pull the nation out of the problem -- and they did.

The tax hike didn't do that. Revenues were constantly increasing after the massive Reagan tax cut. They never stopped. They slowed down after three tax increases, but eventually, with some help from the GOP congress keeping the DNP from spending every red cent, we outgrew the Democrat-created defecit.

You yourself just admitted the Republicans "didn't do much good", so what other conclusion is there but that the Democrats are responsible for the good health of the economy?

That you know nothing about economics OR history?

The economy we had under Clinton was because of Reagan. The GOP just kept Clinton from doing much damage. Too bad they couldn't stop the massive tax increase, though, 'cause then we might not be where we are today.

You still belive in connections that you can't demonstrate. Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc. You'd be a wonderful conspiracy theorist. Sure, the economy was great under Clinton (for the most part), but WHY? What CAUSED the economy to be great? EXACTLY? The tax increases? The lack of domestic energy policy? The administration-requested cuts in OPEC production?

Or perhaps we can trace it back to when the economy REALLY took off to begin with, back in '82. So what caused THAT? Why, a tax cut.

------------------
"Omega is right."
-Jeff Karrde, March 18, 2001 08:47 PM

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

The tax hike CAUSED the problem. The economic growth essentially STOPPED after the Dems passed that tax hike. It took cutting spending (welfare reform, among other things) to get things back on track.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Omega: True, I forgot that point. Tax revenues do generally increase after a tax cut, apparently because more money is spent by those who pay the majority of the taxes. (The wealthy.) It's an odd cycle.

Someone fairly intelligent (In other words, one of that tiny minority of people I consider smarter than myself) I heard not long ago said that we ought to go to a national SALES tax, rather than an income tax, because then only those who purchase and consume more (like the righ) would be taxed, but not at a rate that they couldn't afford. (Say, 10%)

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

This would, I assume, then be a Federal sales tax? Works for me.

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

quote:

(Remember how many states Mondale carried?),

I may have the wrong candidate, but I believe the answer is 1. (West Virginina) He also carried Washington DC.

------------------
Witty Remark