Feinstein and the Anarchist's Cookbook.

Mudcat said:
I remember thinking the same thing when I saw a physical copy in my friend's possession when I myself was a teen.
Click to expand...
What did you think when you saw that the book was heavily updated with real information?
 
applecorped said:
No need to personalize this. The argument you have put forth is unconvincing and is probably closer to the amorality you casually ascribe to me.
Click to expand...
I'm just telling you what your claims sound like to me. That's not getting personal, in the traditional sense. If you want to tell me I'm amorally against human freedom for wanting to shut down Inspire magazine and make it difficult to host I'm all ears to the latest philosophical craze.
 
Would have liked for you to have bothered to do some investigation on the matter, instead of nonsensically demonstrating that you don't care enough to do so.
 
She has helped take out the 4th amendment, lost her fight against the 2nd amendment, and now she thinks she should go after the 1st? Damn. This woman hates the bill of rights.
 
Joey McGee said:
I'm just telling you what your claims sound like to me. That's not getting personal, in the traditional sense. If you want to tell me I'm amorally against human freedom for wanting to shut down Inspire magazine and make it difficult to host I'm all ears to the latest philosophical craze.
Click to expand...

Dodge noted.
 
Not a dodge. What you did what nonsensical. Didn't try and say that the information in the book didn't help them commit the crimes, and or that restricting access to such easily assimilated and used information (as opposed to obtaining a degree in chemistry or avoiding being flushed out before demo training in the armed forces) wouldn't be helpful... no... you simply don't care that the body count isn't in the thousands, or you might give a ******

How morally vapid...

Nothing personal, we're talking philosophy right?

:)
 
Jango said:
She has helped take out the 4th amendment, lost her fight against the 2nd amendment, and now she thinks she should go after the 1st? Damn. This woman hates the bill of rights.
Click to expand...
I don't understand these claims... can you explain them in detail with references or link to someone who does so in a way you agree with?

 
Joey McGee said:
Would have liked for you to have bothered to do some investigation on the matter, instead of nonsensically demonstrating that you don't care enough to do so.
Click to expand...

Why? I never really given the cookbook much thought but always assumed it was out of print but probably survived in some dark corner of the Internet. Never once did it occur to me to research it and I never imagined it had a revised edition. Wikipedia certainly doesn't seem to think it does either, so unless you can demonstrate that it does that's what I'm going with.
 
Mudcat said:
Why? I never really given the cookbook much thought but always assumed it was out of print but probably survived in some dark corner of the Internet. Never once did it occur to me to research it and I never imagined it had a revised edition. Wikipedia certainly doesn't seem to think it does either, so unless you can demonstrate that it does that's what I'm going with.
Click to expand...
Well I only posted one link and the article said this...


Today, the book itself has become largely irrelevant, but not in the way Powell would have wished. PDF copies circulate on the Internet. Over the years, its instructions bled across electronic bulletin boards with names like the Temple of the Screaming Electron. Updated versions appeared, penned by anonymous scribes such as the Jolly Roger and Exodus. “Anarchy Cookbook Version 2000,” for example, focuses not only on pipe bombs, napalm, and dope growing but also hacking and phone phreaking (how quaint).
Click to expand...

I could keep going... but maybe you should take over...
 
Me too.

Let's talk about the validity of denying the enemy the right to publish their propaganda magazine that the Boston Bombers used to commit their crimes. casebro you start
 
Joey McGee said:
I don't understand these claims... can you explain them in detail with references or link to someone who does so in a way you agree with?

[qimg]http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa440/TheMunchkinMan/3dc08a1f-f72b-4921-8936-2f3ccda0eb08.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

4th amendment refers to her being the former Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She openly defended the N.S.A. over warrantless spying. She complained about the C.I.A. spying on her and her Senate colleagues investigating the C.I.A.'s use of torture though, highlighting her blatant hypocrisy.

2nd amendment refers to her actions after the shooting at Sandy Hook.

1st amendment refers to her attempt to have a book censored.
 
Jango said:
4th amendment refers to her being the former Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She openly defended the N.S.A. over warrantless spying.
Click to expand...
Warrantless spying didn't exist, that's a conspiracy theory.
She complained about the C.I.A. spying on her and her Senate colleagues investigating the C.I.A.'s use of torture though, highlighting her blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% sure you don't understand the law behind either claim. Do you still hysterically believe that Snowden leaked programs that were illegal?
2nd amendment refers to her actions after the shooting at Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...
She doesn't believe Americans should have guns?
1st amendment refers to her attempt to have a book censored.
Click to expand...
If you think that we should legally support the efforts to spread Inspire magazine, that's fine, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people understand this is not an attack on free speech.

What sad, vapid nonsense...
 
I need to express myself by giving detailed instructions for killing people with common retail products. See, no one is going to come out for that rally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom