Ron Paul Spam Traced to Reactor Botnet 506
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? writes "Ars is reporting that the Ron Paul spam has been traced back to the Reactor botnet. According to the SecureWorks report, which originally identified the spammer, someone calling themselves nenastnyj was behind it and their botnet control server has been shut down. The Ron Paul campaign has previously denied any connection with this spam campaign."
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:3, Insightful)
it's not like people don't play dirty (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately... (Score:2, Insightful)
On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide. I am not only sick of Ron Paul, but of the whole 2008 election. I was sick of it back in 2006.
Canada has a minority government. It could go into an election at any time really. Most people are concerned about the bills and policies of the government currently in power. It makes no sense to spend more time agonizing over some potential policies of guys who will never be elected while ignoring the government and representatives currently making the decisions.
Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:5, Insightful)
Will he be an imperial president? No.
Will he be able to change the USA into some libertopia. No.
He can exercise veto power.
He can issue pardens.
He can bring the troops home.
That will be more than enough for me.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:3, Insightful)
I like their focus on the Gold Standard.
Hilarious.
There is not enough gold on the whole planet to cover the money now in circulation, much less the Nine Trillion dollar debt!
Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Real world people (Score:5, Insightful)
Your vote does not carry a passion multiplier.
Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (Score:1, Insightful)
So there's little chance people are going to say "GASP! Ron Paul ads came from a spammer! I bet Ron Paul himself paid the spammer out of his own pocket! Well that does it, I'm not voting for him now!" but there is a strong probability that some of the people getting the spam are the sort to acquire their opinions from their inbox, so the net result would be a boost to Ron Paul's numbers.
You'd have to be an idiot who's only 3 pages into "Elections for Dummies" to think that tactic would do you any good. And really, why bother, when there's tried and true methods of rumor-mongering and push-polling and outright swift-boat lying to smear a candidate with.
- mantar
(P.S. to "Libertarian" party supporters: Power corrupts. No matter who you vote for, the government gets in.)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
After you've elected your representatives, what they do is out of your hands; the only way you can change their behavior is to elect someone different next time. Therefore, agonizing over who to elect next time is, in fact, the only thing that makes sense if you live in a representative democracy. Worrying about day-to-day policies is pointless once you've made up your mind that you already don't like the current guys.
On another note, I am Canadian. To me, it does not make sense that an election should last 4 years and require the kind of funding only mega-corporations can provide.
If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.
Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really true... most small corporations want smaller government in the areas of their field... while the bigger corporations want bigger government, with more barriers to entry to help protect themselves...
Nephilium
Vote Smart in 2008 (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, this incident with the spammer supporting Ron Paul will be spun, by his competitors, into a gotcha.
Please do your yourself -- and your nation -- a favor. Avoid the above method of selecting political candidates. Ignore gotcha's, glamor, and glitz. Do not vote along party lines.
Instead, research the voting history, the policy proposals, and the honesty of the candidates in the 2008 race for president. You can easily find this information at the quality news sites like "The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]". Hopefully, Rupert Murdoch will open the web site of the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) to the public before the election in 2008. The WSJ has some of the best in-depth reporting in the industry, but the WSJ web site is currently open only to subscribers.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:1, Insightful)
most people under 25 don't know what racism is....they know what they've been told racism is...
they mistake the common behavior of all homo sapiens to "prejudge".
I prejudge all the time, so do you.
I might even say something to you about my prejudgements...and it might hurt your feelings, or offend you.
You'll label it racism. And like millions upon millions of generation Y'ers and forward, you'll be wrong.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
This year, things started so soon because of profound discontent with the Bush Administration, states moving up their primary schedule, and a field that is generally seen as stronger than we've had the past two elections: Clinton, Obama, Biden, Richardson, Paul, Huckabee.... all are either popular and, at worst, competent. Compare this with the "least bad" votes we had in 2000 and 2004. Few were really excited about Gore, Bush or Kerry, and people are excited now.
As for the rest of the premise, that we don't care about legislation, I think that's somewhat true. Americans have gotten tired of Pres. Bush's voice (although I did just hear him pronounce "nuclear" correctly for the first time that I can remember); they strongly dislike Congress; and they don't like the partisan bickering that will dominate the next 13 months. Nothing's running smoothly in Washington, and we don't have a Harper to cut the legs out from an already weak opposition. Everyone, except the candidates, are weak, and we desperately want to hold onto someone strong.
Spammer lobbying for property rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:4, Insightful)
Supporting the abolition of affirmative action -- i.e., hiring, promoting or admitting into school, etc., on the basis of racial quotas -- as Ron Paul does is also not racism. If anything, the entire concept of affirmative action could arguably be viewed as racism since there is some underlying notion that minorities would otherwise be unable to gain schooling or employment were it not for racial quotas. I think that underestimates the abilities of minorities to the extreme.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban [loc.gov] abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws [loc.gov], the minimum wage [loc.gov], and federal antitrust law [loc.gov], plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?
I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Insightful)
By your 'logic' the War in 1776 was also a Civil War. The difference is pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and a basic understanding of the English language.
The US, an internationally recognized territory of the British Empire, wanted to be free of the Crown, thus making it a War of Independence. The CSA quit the Union, wishing to be recognized as an independent nation in exactly the same way as their forefathers had sent their Declaration of Independence to King George. The Union objected pretty much the same as King George did and for much the same reason (fear of losing a critical revenue stream, the North was very dependent on taxing Southern exports mixed with pride) and a War for Southern Independence was fought. The Union won, obviously and thus wrote the official histories.
Had it actually been a Civil War the CSA would have been trying to conquer the Union and thus win the right (through contest at arms) to control the whole of the United States and impose it's views.
> you sir are a fucking moron.
And thee are a foul mouthed twerp that needs to grow up and learn how adults discourse in public.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Last I checked, plenty of economies have had trouble both with and without backed currencies. As far as I can tell, the recipe for a strong economy is sound political and economic policy. There is no magic, and no easy answers.
(I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but it's in spite of, not because of, his ridiculous gold standard ideas.)
disappointing (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:5, Insightful)
2597 and 1094: It's what the man believes, and it's consistent with basic biology (A fetus is alive, and it is unarguably human. You can legitimately argue whether or not it should have full legal protections identical to an adult, and that's a discussion we should have, but creating a mythical transformation point from non human to human somewhere between conception and birth is a laughable failure to grasp high school biology). He could argue the Constitutionality based on the Congressional power to conduct the census (The power to count a thing by necessity includes the power to determine what does and doesn't count as that thing). Regardless of your beliefs on the issue, a straight up or down vote on a bill like this in Congress (or my preference, state legislatures) is almost infinitely preferable to the current situation where 9 old lawyers answerable to no one decide whatever the hell they feel like and impose it on all the rest of us. Paul's bill, crackpot as it seems, would force a settlement of the issue so we could get on with other things in this country instead of this same tired fight coming up every election and dividing us yet again.
1095: Put an end to a blatant violation of the 10th amendment. Government should follow the law. Christ, you'd think the last 7 years would have made that PAINFULLY obvious to everyone.
300: See above, just change Article 3 for Amendment 10. State courts were supposed to be primary (read the Federalist papers and see for yourselves, even the big government Federalists promised that order of court supremacy in order to get the Constitution ratified)
We the People Act: See Amendments 1 and 10, especially 10. Not a power given to the federal government, courts or no courts. IIRC, 3 of the ratifying states had established state religions when the Bill of Rights was adopted, so it clearly was not intended to prevent states from making up their own minds on the subject. I'm not saying this is the way things should be, but unless there is an amendment to fix it, it's the law of the land and government should obey it.
"Against homosexual rights" and "supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally": More like against allowing the Federal government to have any say on or knowledge of the matter of who people sleep with one way or the other. Although I admit I haven't dug as deeply into this aspect of his record, so if you can contradict me on that interpretation I'd be interested to see your evidence.
Paul is a long way from perfect, but even the positions I violently disagree with him on are rationally argued and internally consistent with respect to his understanding of the Constitution, which overrides all other considerations for him. After 8 years of the Constitution being "just a goddammned piece of paper", I think restoring that principle to government is the absolute priority. We can sort out differences in opinion later, once our freedom to have differences in opinions is safe again. (Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Violent Radicalization act etc.)
Re:disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't like the conservative approach, I do like the way Paul appears to be his own man with his own opinions. --Which, incidentally, is why I doubt he has any real chances in the American stage drama of politics. He seems like an idealist who doesn't play well with others. The military industrial complex doesn't want guys like that calling the shots. -Calling the army home from Iraq? No, that's not going to go over well with the Powers That Be, (and I'm not talking about the current administration). Unless the whole system is pulled apart and all the many, many criminals put away, people who work within a belief system which doesn't recognize that the whole game is a sham which lives and breathes on the vapors of corruption are not going to make much head-way. It's a shame. Ron Paul for all the points I don't agree with, looks for all intents and purposes like what a real politician should be. We don't see too many guys like that. --And when we do see them begin to make real progress, they seem to die in small airplane crashes. I wonder if he realizes this.
-FL
Re:Unfortunately...your wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:disappointing (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to his supporters very exaggerated, very uninformed, superficial analysis of reality?
"i don't see why it should matter to anyone that he doesn't have as many supporters as other candidates."
They don't call it an election for nothing.
"can anyone provide a more in-depth analysis of his beliefs?"
Take Article I, rip out the General Welfare Clause, and pretend that Section 10 applies to the federal government as well as (if not "instead of") the states.
Remove Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That's really about it.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey people: there's a reason why he's Stormfront's official candidate. There's a reason why David Duke, a white supremacist who's also a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, is lyrical about the man. There's also a reason for the full support he gets from holocaust-denier Hutton Gibson.
Someday, the kids who post stories on Digg about Ron Paul mentioning the word "constitution" will understand what kind of a terrible person he is, and how stupid they were for supporting him.
Re:it's not like people don't play dirty (Score:3, Insightful)
RP's opponents can't find any actual scandal or issue to smear him with, so they've resorted to 'don't waste your vote on him because he can't win'. Or saying he's not a real Republican just because he didn't follow the recent GOP policy shifts that have them hemmoraging voters and congressional seats.
Re:Great, more anti women supporters. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. His intention to return jurisdiction over abortion to the states doesn't require him to ignore the fact that today, it's a matter over which the federal government claims power.
Oh really? I'm sure that many people in this country will be very distressed to learn that Plessy v. Ferguson is still the law of the land, then. So much for integration. (Oh, wait.. Plessey was overturned in Brown v. Topeka.)
Try again.
-jcr
There's "shouldn't be unconstitutional/constitutional" and there's "what is unconstitutional/constitutional". The former is what you and I can hold opinions on. The latter is the purview of ONLY the Supreme Court once it has come to a decision on it, as it had done in Roe v Wade. If the Supreme Court hasn't heard it, then it's the lower court's temporary purview, but the question isn't definitely answered until the Supreme Court hears it and decides. And then it is only in effect until and if they overturn it. It's an interesting secular system that goes against what people typically think of if they are religious, but I happen to think it's pretty well thought out!
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:3, Insightful)
My understanding is that Ron Paul is against ANY laws that divide people into certain sub-classes and then grant those specific groups additional rights based on their minority class. He believes that all people are individuals with equal rights and that there should be no laws that give extra protection or financial benefit to specific groups.
Think about the following hypothetical statements:
Crimes against white people by non-whites should be punished more severely in order to reduce crime against them.
White people should be given preference in hiring and admissions over other people of greater qualification in order to raise their socioeconomic status.
We should assist in the defense of and ally ourselves with white nations who are threatened by non-white nations.
White people should be allowed to form organizations that exclude non-white people from joining.
Tax dollars should be used to help fund organizations specific to white people.
Of course, to vote for the above ideals would be considered the height of racism in America. But if you change 'white' to some minority, you run the risk of being labelled as a racist for being against them.
There are a lot of well-intentioned laws passed every year that aim to prevent minority abuse. But in protecting one class of people at the expense of another, you just expand the problem. Ron Paul consistently votes against laws that grant additional rights to a particular class of people at the expense of the rights of the rest.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - Justice Clarence Thomas
Re:Great, more anti women supporters. (Score:5, Insightful)
I need no excuses. You're the one who's tried to tar Ron Paul as a liar, and failed to do so. Your claim, your burden of proof.
This is the third time I've repeated myself, in a slightly different way, just so that it's in the same post and that perhaps it might sink in if presented slightly differently. At this point, you can choose to believe whatever you want. I know that most reasonable people will look at your responses to my posts and ponder at how efficiently you've selectively quoted me and not even addressed my arguments. At this point, probably the majority just think you're trolling.
Consider the burden of proof as still being on me all you want, but if you want to convince people that I haven't proven it, then you should actually try rebutting them directly. In another post, you did try once, but you just created a huge contradiction with the rest of his program. As that's a contradiction, I'm not left with anything to argue against from your angle.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:3, Insightful)
Every Federal Reserve Note is a Dollar that the US Government borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank against your ability to pay taxes. Think of what it means for someone other than yourself to create debt that YOU have to pay? That makes you a slave in a way doesn't it? And that "deficit" thing? They talk about it all day long on the news... what does it mean exactly?
Ultimately what getting off the Gold Standard has done is replaced a check book with an unlimited credit card. We know what happens when individuals do it. Why would we expect less disasterous problems when a Government does it!? (Yes, it's possible to NOT go crazy into debt using credit cards... but they aren't doing it.)
The Federal Reserve Bank is *NOT* a branch of the U.S. Federal Government... they may OWN the U.S. Federal Government (and through that government, they own you) but they are NOT the U.S. Federal Government.
The Gold Standard is a checkbook. Being on the Federal Reserve is a credit card. Think about it.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:3, Insightful)
No examination of background occurs... If they really wanted to 'help previously disadvantaged people' then a white kid with two generations of family who worked the mines should be _just_ as eligible as a black kid from the same background.
Again, affirmative action exists to benefit people of specif races only and explicitly excludes other equally disadvantaged people purely on the basis of their race. It's plain and simple racism, just with a fancier name.
Re:I don't for a minute believe this was unofficia (Score:4, Insightful)
The fed artificially lowered interest rates by way too much. This allowed people to either drastically lower their monthly payments or be able to buy a much more expensive home for the same monthly payment. This became a national trend.
In areas with a limited housing supply, home prices rose drastically so that the higher price with the lower interest rate yielded the same monthly payment. Some people cashed out massive profits, but at the expense of the buyer who would see their home value plummet to it's previous value in five years.
In areas with plenty of builders and land to put homes on, people began building huge quantities of larger, more lavish homes. Individual home prices didn't go up, but median home prices did. Fueled by low monthly payments, people bought homes that they could never afford at the rates from just a few years earlier.
This, in turn, LED to the incredibly lax bank lending standards in some areas. Previously, banks required hefty down payments, good credit and proof of income to give a loan. But with homes appreciating at double digit rates (again, caused by artificially low interest rates), it looked like a sure thing that the outstanding loan would be under 80% in two years. Fifty year, interest only, reverse amortization, it didn't matter, the house would out-appreciate ANY loan.
Then the fed comes back in, raises the rates back up and BAM, people default like crazy because they can't refinance their ARMs at anything close to the old rate.
Yes, there was bad business practices and greed all around, but the root cause of the whole thing was bad interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:1, Insightful)
Huh? That makes no sense; you could just as well switch "US" and "Canada" around there: "The reason companies spend a boatload of money on Canadian elections is because Canadian elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs the USA simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside the USA."
If you're from Canada, that statement makes perfect sense, just like your statement makes perfect sense if you're from the USA - of course what matters most to a US company is the USA's government, not the Canadian one, and what matters most to a Canadian company is the Canadian government, not the US one (just imagine that!).
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
My theory - it was either a friend or foe. (Score:2, Insightful)
It was either a rival trying to make Ron Paul look bad, or it was one of Ron's diehard missionaries trying to 'spread the word of Ron Paul' in a way that irritates the largest number of people possible. Some of his disciples are very, very prone to doing that.
I know the Church Of Ron Paul has infested Youtube like a VD sort of plague. Don't get me wrong - I don't think Ron Paul is a bad guy, but some of his followers are absolutely obnoxious if you dare criticize their messiah in any way. I questioned if he may be too old for the Presidency, and got some pretty mean responses. (Some at least tried to give a rational reply, but there also was a lot of ad hominem and strawman fallacy getting tossed around.)
Re:Sure Fire +5 Insightful (or -1 troll... not sur (Score:4, Insightful)
No, fall. The 2000 primaries were terrible to him, and he changed in agonizing increments since then from principled maverick to administration lapdog. I mean, this is a man who was literally beaten by a rumor that the kids he had adopted were really illegitimates. After having bled and fought for this country (and served it in many capacities) that has got to be devastating. After that, he started to listen to all the wrong advice, and lost his instinct for being different (since it punished him so much in the election and even afterward).
Every person has a breaking point beyond which disillusionment and cynicism are inevitable. Public service (no matter how much, or how deservedly we pile on to politicians) is a fairly dehumanizing and unforgiving profession. That the guy finally lost his way is no reflection of his "true colors" in any legitimate sense I can think of.
On "voting smart in '08" .... (Score:3, Insightful)
By the same token, avid net users who read blog sites and news sites (like Slashdot!) are FAR more likely than average to select a candidate based on their individual stances, vs. voting for them "just because they told a funny joke" or "were the most stylishly dressed" during a TV appearance.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're trying to imply that the Canadian political system is somehow immune to such excesses, you're wrong. The reason companies spend a boatload of money on US elections is because US elections matter a great deal to their bottom line; on the other hand, who governs Canada simply doesn't matter much to corporations or anybody outside Canada.
---
While you are correct that the interest in Canadian federal general elections are limited to the northern part of North America, the money tied to US elections is just off the map compared to other democracies, even ones with larger economies than that wonderful country on the northern shores of the Great Lakes. I see it as more of a problem with fixed election dates. If you don't know when Parliament is going to be dissolved, you want to save your resources for the election call. The biggest downside to Westminster-style parliaments is that it does give the advantage in the game to the governing party who can ask the Crown (or president in parliamentary governed republics) to dissolve Parliament and call an election.
Re:You say that sarcastically, but... (Score:3, Insightful)