Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt arti

A propensity for violence is not a prerequisite, nor is the size of the group. When Sunstein expressed his desire to infiltrate bowling leagues, I don't think he was joking. We might as well be living in the old East German surveillance state.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm well assured that this state (any state) can and will perpetrate any manner of evil.

My contribution to this thread has mainly been to point out that just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they're are being paid to do so.
 
I am here for the recipes.I remain unconvinced that many people really believe in limited govt . I suspect many just like the sound of it. They just do not want to pay for the services they use :).I am a known extremist , I do not want to pay for them or use them, lol
 
I vaguely remember the fed gov / ONDCP getting busted for paying certain television producers to include anti-drug messages in their programming. If I remember correctly, King of the Hill was one of them. This reminds me of that absent the tracking.

Yep: http://cannabisnews.com/news/8/thread8126.shtml
 
Last edited:
I felt disturbance in the force and it led me here.

WTF people? Pages of trolling accusations and my name is not mentioned one single time?

q0ptioka8a-t.jpg




OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!

OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!

OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
 
Last edited:
Well, here's the thing--there are Fed trolls, of course there are. This is how they've busted people who operate in Bitcoin, Anonymous and probably other orgs--this is known, so the logical conclusion is that OF COURSE they are monitoring chatrooms and probably disrupting some things. But, as of this point, I still believe (due to things like their budget), that it's only much higher-level stuff than YouTube, RPF's, etc.

They are looking to bust big players and take everything they have while making an example of them. The NSA's programs will make it easier to eventually go after smaller and smaller targets for far less effort.

Well that's a fair opinion but I don't agree at all. We are the solution to them being the problem of big government tyranny that they are profiting from, if you don't think that is true then why do you promote the freedom philosophy? Of course they are going to focus on us. We are their central focus, in fact. Not only do they focus on us, they employ people like Glenn Beck just to get people from our movement thinking that their ideas are going mainstream and to misdirect their focus, but also to prevent some people from coming to us altogether due to being painted as fringe so they just stick with the mainstream versions of our movement. So when they focus their efforts elsewhere, really they are still focused square on us. When the progressive who wants to restore our civil liberties, end the war on drugs and end all of the overseas wars is being taught at school that government needs to be more universal and have more power to distribute wealth, guess who they are focused on? Us. Because they agree with us on pretty much everything except wealth distribution. So if you don't think they would throw some resources in our direction, specifically, well, I don't know why that would make any sense.
 
Sunstein's statements show that the government does not measure threat-level in terms of "hints at violence" alone. Specifically, Sunstein advocates the active suppression of:
  • skepticism about the government’s assertions;
  • beliefs that "hamper political support for measures against future terrorist attacks"; and
  • the belief that the ruling regime is violating the constitution.


http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585

Yeah, it has nothing to do with violence. The Government isn't afraid that Ron Paul supporters are violent. They just don't want people voting against more government.

Our arguments say things like

1) The FedGov is bad because they pay people to troll on message boards.

Their response is to

1) Pay people to troll on message boards.
 
During the campaign right up until the RNC, and shortly after it, you used the Maine GOP as THE example everyone should have followed because they "did what they were told by the campaign".

Did you only recently discover Mark Willis' past occupation?

Have you attempted to discuss it with him?

"During the campaign right up until the RNC, and shortly after it, you used the Maine GOP as THE example everyone should have followed because they "did what they were told by the campaign"."

You are correct. I am disillusioned about this. There clearly was a failure. I would be interested to know where to point the finger of blame. Brakey and/or the National Campaign. Willis was not properly vetted. Brakey isn't necessarily going to know to look out for things like INSCOM/NSA on a resume, but the National Campaign should. So, Brakey is somewhat to blame for putting up a bad candidate and the National Campaign is somewhat to blame for not rejecting the bad candidate.
I am not pleased.

"Did you only recently discover Mark Willis' past occupation?"

Yes. About a month ago. When he quit, writing an article where it said, explicitly, former "counterintelligence" in his bio. Bangor Daily News.

This is not to say that this information just became available. I have no idea when this information became available. There's at least some degree of trust that the people who are tasked by the campaign will try to avoid giving prime jobs to people who worked for INSCOM/NSA. In terms of getting Mark Willis elected, the 1118 were handed a list of people to vote for on that day in Augusta in May.

"Have you attempted to discuss it with him?"

No. I've never interacted w/ him. His wife, Violet, I've communicated with online, facebook, message boards, and she's difficult. I saw red flags with her as early as the Washington Co. Caucus.
 
Well that's a fair opinion but I don't agree at all. We are the solution to them being the problem of big government tyranny that they are profiting from, if you don't think that is true then why do you promote the freedom philosophy? Of course they are going to focus on us. We are their central focus, in fact. Not only do they focus on us, they employ people like Glenn Beck just to get people from our movement thinking that their ideas are going mainstream and to misdirect their focus, but also to prevent some people from coming to us altogether due to being painted as fringe so they just stick with the mainstream versions of our movement. So when they focus their efforts elsewhere, really they are still focused square on us. When the progressive who wants to restore our civil liberties, end the war on drugs and end all of the overseas wars is being taught at school that government needs to be more universal and have more power to distribute wealth, guess who they are focused on? Us. Because they agree with us on pretty much everything except wealth distribution. So if you don't think they would throw some resources in our direction, specifically, well, I don't know why that would make any sense.

Here's where the disagreement lies: they are likely to go after those of us who DO something real that threatens them. Lots of libertarians on Bitcoin forums, any idea how much easier and potentially more fruitful it is to go after a libertarian conducting business in BTC on Silk Road? Or are they going to waste their time here, reading about shitty cops who piss us off and see how much we do or don't donate to various candidates. How about the libertarians in Anonymous chat rooms possibly plotting an attack on a bank or gov't vs. the libertarians in our chat rooms arguing about age of consent laws? We're boring, not breaking any laws, only cheering some on who choose to.

And, as I mentioned, they won't need to use those resources after all the stuff they have goes live--they'll have all this data analyzed by computers and start putting resources in whatever direction the computers send them.

So no, I don't think they put any resources towards us at this point in time.
 
Here's where the disagreement lies: they are likely to go after those of us who DO something real that threatens them. Lots of libertarians on Bitcoin forums, any idea how much easier and potentially more fruitful it is to go after a libertarian conducting business in BTC on Silk Road? Or are they going to waste their time here, reading about shitty cops who piss us off and see how much we do or don't donate to various candidates. How about the libertarians in Anonymous chat rooms possibly plotting an attack on a bank or gov't vs. the libertarians in our chat rooms arguing about age of consent laws? We're boring, not breaking any laws, only cheering some on who choose to.

And, as I mentioned, they won't need to use those resources after all the stuff they have goes live--they'll have all this data analyzed by computers and start putting resources in whatever direction the computers send them.

So no, I don't think they put any resources towards us at this point in time.

amy, why do you assume the government is condoning lawful speech by lawful persons, when Sunstein has shown the opposite? You are failing to come to terms with the actual content of Sunstein's program.
 
Last edited:
amy, why do you assume the government is condoning lawful speech by lawful persons, when Sunstein has shown the opposite? You are failing to come to terms with the actual content of Sunstein's program.

I have not read your posts beyond seeing that you were addressing me.
 
I have not read your posts beyond seeing that you were addressing me.

If you do read Sunstein's statements, you will see that you are confusing the issue. This thread is not about some effort of the government to find crime or criminals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top