fchan

discussion

YouTube - SECRET PLAN TO KILL THE INTERNET BY

Pages:1 41
1Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 22:39


there was this thing on youtube illustrating about slowly eliminating this free network.  And the only way you could get it is by paying for a bunch of sites that have nothing but crap on it.

Long story short, there doing the same thing as they doing it to TV broadcasting.

the address for it was

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideC5HXeOzM

but its not there any more

It was part of something much bigger that spooked me out

Something involving a new world order, marshal law, and concentration camps being built in the US.
 
Think of it what you will, but im a bit nervous.

2Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 23:03

You should be nervous. These are the same bastards who assassinated Kennedy, kidnapped Elvis, rigged up explosives in the WTC, fooled Hollywood into thinking Tom Cruise could act,  and faked the moon landing. Heavy shit.

3Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 23:51

>>2

Ah, yes.  Heroin-induced hallucinations worry me as well.

4Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 23:52

Enjoy the future of your non-freedom. I saw this coming and tried to get you people fighting for freedom but none of you cared.

5Report
at 6 Nov 2008: 23:57

>>4
gb/2 bed, Michael Moore.

6Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 00:21

>>5
You won't be able to make snide remarks once you have no internet that includes Fchan on it anymore. Enjoy your 60+ approved websites and broadband that is nothing more than glorified cable tv with strict censorship and hand picked channels.

7Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 01:48

>>2 Please don't mock me,

Whether its real or not, I'm actually really REALLY!! terrified right now!!

8Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 02:05

>>7

I meant to direct that at >>3

9Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 05:11

>>7
Settle down. Nothing's gonna happen.

10Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 10:41

yeah right.  you have no idea what you're instore for with obama and a majority dem congress.  we're talking the "Fairness Doctrine" a doctrine that allows the FCC to controll everything from talk radio to the internet.  in other words it basiclly MAKES everyone share equal time with people who are of oppisite opinions in public forums, in short FCHAN would be legally forced to allow griefers, anti-fur, and the like just as many posts as us furries have put up on here or suffer shutdown. that would mean that in order to be fair rather than keeping all the old posts, FCHAN would have to delete all posts from normal furries down to the number of griefers that have posted and keep the margins within certain limits.  this doctirine will also apply to you tube, vcl, SL, and basically anything that has a server based in the US.

the next thing on the plate is taxes... ugh its a reall nightmare... allowing the bush cuts to expire, then ading another 15% onto that and then each sector of government adding at least another 5%... yes we are all slaves to the government who gets its paycheck before it actually does any work and spends it on the people who talk about doing work...

ugh...

as soon as i'm able i'm moving to iceland.

11Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 10:57

>>10
I love how I haven't heard anything about this until today.

Sorry, but I get really REALLY bored and poke around the internet for hours at a time to keep entertained, and this is something I haven't found at all. I don't think this holds water.

12Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 11:03

>>10
OH WAIT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

According to this, the "Fairness Doctrine" applies to broadcast licenses and does NOT require they share equal time, but only that the opposing viewpoint be presented in some way.

And oh! Obama doesn't support opening the Fairness Doctrine (it's been closed down, obviously,) however he DOES support Net Neutrality. So basically what you're saying is pretty much garbage, except for the tax stuff. And the only reason I'm saying you're false there is because I'm not really researching that particular part of the argument. :P

But have fun in Iceland after moving over problems you haven't fully researched.

13Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 11:04

>>12
Err..."only reason I'm saying you're NOT false." Sorry for the triple post, wish I could edit them. :/

14Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 12:09

>>10
You are a moron. He wants to keep the bush tax cuts for everyone making under $250,000(in NET PROFIT AFTER EXPENSES), there is also so many loopholes available for the rich that all they have to do is INVEST IN AMERICA LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE and they get tax credits for each employee which negate the tax increases.

There will be NO TAX INCREASE FOR THE PEOPLE MAKING UNDER $250,000. Furthermore there will be additional tax CUTS for people making under that.

Apparently you support a free market world which is proven not to work. The free market has gotten us the following;
-Slowest broadband in the world
-Highest cell phone costs in the world(even higher when the government hadn't stepped in to create competition)
-Least broadband connectivity in the world
-Wages that are nowhere near inflation rates
-Terrible healthcare coverage with constantly raising prices

Do I need to go on? The free market DOES NOT WORK. When companies realize they can make billions more by working together AGAINST THE CONSUMER rather than competing like capitalism proposes...then we end up fucked. Until the government steps in and regulates these companies will continue fucking us up the ass.

15Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 12:11

indeed obama does not support it perse, but nacy palocy and harry reed do, who are bed fellows as it were to obama.  combine net neutrality and fairness doctrine... add on to that the new plans he has for inter-poll, the sanctioning of new "safe guards" for internet, or rather the restriction of available media that is able to be linked to via US servers, and it basically boils down to #14 in a nut shell, though probbaly not as bad as projected.

follow when the money came from with obama and you will be able to tell exactly where he will be going in the next 6 months...

mostly supporters of all of these acts, and some acts that a lot more.. well... restricting.

it's like obama said "gas price just went up too high too fast" "i would have preferred they go up more slowly"

because if you want to boil a frog alive, you have to increase the heat slowly so that he doesnt notice that he is be boiled alive... extend that to any issue you want and you will see that this is how the taking away of freedom starts.

with something small and inacuous... then its normal... then they add something else a little bit bigger into it... and so on until poof... its full blow censership.

16Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 12:13

>>15
The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with the internet. I don't know what right wing fanatic tried to convince you otherwise. Give up and stop trolling. You obviously know nothing about politics, Obama's plans or laws in general.

17Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 12:22

>>14
Capitalism worked until rich people realized they could make more money by working together in secret to raise prices on the consumer. Why compete and lose millions or even billions in potential profit when you can simply work with your enemy to raise prices? Everyone wins, except the consumer of course.

The same argument applies to jobs and pay. It also applies to all forms of for-profit insurance. There is simply very little reason to truly compete in today's world and the only time the consumer gets a little bit of fairness is when the government intervenes.

Japan had a free market on broadband, then they made it a national priority, took over the lines and said "everyone share them and compete". Now look at them, they have 25MBps lines for $25 a month. You can get 100MBps for $50 a month. The rest of the world did the same thing...they forced providers to share the lines. In America all the lines are owned by a duopoly who has no intention of raising our speeds, lowering our prices or giving America what it truly needs to bring economic growth.

If anything the broadband companies in America are looking to further LIMIT your usage of the internet. Under AT&T's new plan that they are testing in Reno you would only get 80GB per month of bandwidth for a 6MBps line. In other words...30 hours of constant downloading at full speed and then you have to start paying them per GB. SOUNDS FUN. I'm tired of all the free market thinkers out there. Free market works ONLY if there is true competition of which there is NOT.

18Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 16:19

indeed.

personally i think its time the whole ball of fax be scrapped and we start over.  that's the only way anything will really "change".

take all the richest and all the poorest, move them to canada, take all the leaders higher than local government, put them on a ship and sink it.

that's the only way to end it. period.

if you are talking about real free enterprise and the ability to suceed.

it out weighs the cost of life really. a sacrifice of a few to save the many.

if you notice all that ever happens is that the buck always gets passed down to the little guy.

the reason those prices move like that is primarily because of taxes, secondarily because of business to business conspiracy, greed, and of couse the "the other guy will pay the tab" mentality.

go a head use a very simple example:

take $10,000 US.
you pay exactly that (with whatever your state tax is)
for something,
now that % of tax is gone from both you and the business, so they mark up the price to make up for it.
now when they put that 10,000 in the bank they have to pay income tax on it.
now when they withdraw it they have to pay payroll taxes on it which gets passed to the worker
who again gets income tax, state tax, local tax, social security, and whatever else they qualify for.
and when the owner pays themselfes, they get all those taxes too.
so now you are left with:
-350 for the week the employee worked
-100 in payroll tax
now levey the 75% tax on the remaining for profit
10,000-450=9550
now add in business cost
inventory tax 8%
-764
utility
-30
electric
-10
property tax
-100
income tax 39%
-3171
before social security and the rest of qualifying taxes in a 250,000 yr income bracker having 1 employee, on the 10,000 sale the owner made:
$4961 respectively.
now... repeat the process when he or she goes to buy something for the store....
do you see how quickly it becomes apparent that money means absolutely nothing because the government takes it ALL within 3 trading cycles?

19Report (sage)
LLz at 7 Nov 2008: 18:54

>>18
2 points:

a) You're just stating maximum potential tax. There're many ways to get tax reductions (even if some are questionably legal).
b) You're unnecessarily duplicating a lot of your tax counts. (most notably the income tax)
bi) Income tax doesn't apply to businesses (granted they get some other tax). When the owner puts money in the bank for the business, there's no income tax, since it's not income until all processes are accounted for. It's not how much profits you have, it's your net profits, which substracts business costs from the equation (key note: this is one of the main areas where the system can be manipulated).
bii) You're merging a lot of processes here. Property tax is completely seperate. Inventory tax is circumstancial (especially if you outsource). Social security varies from location to location, and is technically counted as future investment (since you get your social security when you retire).
Electric and utility bills are not taxes.

The main problem is the over-complication of taxes, which makes it both easy to game the system, and expensive to compute. Taxes are a necessary evil, irregardless of how you paint the picture.

And you assume that the government takes everything, which is false as well. Social security is (theoretically) held until you retire. Much of the taxes goes into infrastructure, security, and other public assets (aka back to the people). And you neglect that when you make a purchase, you also get the assets relevant to said purchase, which doesn't go to the government as well.

20Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 20:04

Higher taxes and a lower standard of living is not nessesarly the only thing that bugs me, I most worried about the FEMA camps. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THERE GONNA USE THOSE FOR?

21Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 20:20

>>11

look up New World Order ,Marshal Law, and H.A.R.P, on google and YouTube

youll be in for a major shock.

22Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 20:45

>>20 >>21 Grow a brain, you'll be in for a major shock! Seriously, this stuff is just baseless claims with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It's like Zeitgeist without the fancy effects and amusing quotes. I honestly don't know why anyone believes any of this stuff.

23Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 22:39

...I know someone who thinks that...
Shhh...
Obama is going to put said person into a concentration camp.

Which said person actually got the idea from some crazy 'preacher' who used to do some nasty drugs.  You know, the ones that mess you up the rest of your life?  Yep, sounds like someone I'd definitely take the word of on everything that isn't "This is how bad I'm messed up because of drugs A, B, C, and D that I took way back when."  In fact, that's the *only* thing you can't trust them with, indeed.

24Report
at 7 Nov 2008: 22:57

>>22


"this stuff is just baseless claims with absolutely no evidence to back it up."

Probably, but just do it anyway.

25Report
Sen at 7 Nov 2008: 23:06

>>15
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Net Neutrality, essentially, how the internet is working right now? I've read a few articles about net neutrality but I will admit if I'm wrong on the issue.

>>21
It's...it's "martial law."

And for your information, I've listened to Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell since I was very very young, and they always talk about conspiracy theories about these subjects. Since the early goddamn 90's we've been warned by his guests that the New World Order, or Martial Law would kick in by '95. Then '96. Then '97. '98. '99. 2000. 2001.

Are you starting to see the pattern here?

It's 2008, almost 2009 and I haven't seen anything of the sort even beginning to rear its head. You're paranoid. Instead of seeing this one side of the issue, you need to expand your thinking to more a more rational scope and think that maybe, maybe, these people aren't in their right states of mind when they spout this stuff off.

26Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 00:59

>>25

"these people aren't in their right states of mind when they spout this stuff off."

you mean as in being as fear crazed as i am?

27Report
Sen at 8 Nov 2008: 01:11

>>26
I'm willing to say just "crazed" in general.

28Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 02:16

>>27

That's just fine.

Anyone else wanna say something?

I would like to keep this thing going.

29Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 03:42

Anyone who believes that is a foil hat wearing conspiracy nutjob. Just take your medication and relax. It'll make the voices go away.

30Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 11:50

CULTURE OF FEAR
FEAR TACTICS
PROPAGANDA

It's what America is all about. That video is SO American right now.

31Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 14:18

poor poor deluded 19.  the calucation for the business was a single owner business who is in it of himself a licensed corperation that is also an individual. this was a real purchase with a real business  that actually happened.

32Report
at 8 Nov 2008: 19:35

>>30

I think that video was made outside of the US.

33Report
at 13 Nov 2008: 03:27

I doubt if anyone is still interested, but I have some websites that you guys can look into.

http://www.threeworldwars.com

http://www.prisonplanet.com

http://www.infowars.com

http://endthefed.us/

and whole lot of videos about it on you tube


cheers

34Report
Sen at 13 Nov 2008: 05:58

>>33
all conspiracy theory propaganda websites.

I'd like more credible sources, please. Not the same one that everyone seems to link to, aka, that youtube video referenced in the original post.

35Report
at 13 Nov 2008: 20:30

>>34 Well you can always do the research yourself.

36Report
at 13 Nov 2008: 21:53

>>35 They're the ones making ridiculous claims, so the burden of proof rests solely on them.

37Report
at 14 Nov 2008: 05:13



I don't know about you, but I not willing to take the risk on on denying it.

If you think in nuts, then that's your problem.

38Report
Sen at 14 Nov 2008: 07:42

>>37
big text is big.

39Report
at 14 Nov 2008: 07:45

>>38
yeah...I don't why it did that.

40Report
at 14 Nov 2008: 07:58

>>38
wait!..., slightly off topic, arent you the person who is planing to open a used video game store?

correct me if I'm wrong.

45Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage