Mythbusters Banned From Discussing RFID By Visa And Mastercard

Host Adam Savage of Mythbusters tells how Visa, Mastercard, and Discover had the Discovery Channel put the kibosh on an episode that would have revealed just how “trackable and hackable” the RFID chips found in many credit cards are. It’s a telling example of how corporate advertisers serve as the gatekeepers of mainstream media/entertainment:

132 Comments on "Mythbusters Banned From Discussing RFID By Visa And Mastercard"

  1. 1776rememberyourrights777 | Feb 2, 2012 at 9:17 am |


    • Nerf Herder | Feb 2, 2012 at 9:59 am |

      Newt?? Really??  Get the F out of here!

      • Rickybobby | Feb 2, 2012 at 11:10 am |

        lol newt.

      • 1776rememberyourrights777 | Feb 2, 2012 at 11:58 am |

        well if you love bho you can vote for mittens &give him a second term or you can go jump in the ocean or wherever with europeeon socialism take the whole mass traitor train &STAY THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY!! Subject: [disinfo] Re: Mythbusters Banned From Discussing RFID By Visa And Mastercard

        • Hardwire187 | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:31 pm |

          They takin’ our jerbs. TAKIN OUR JERBS!!!

        • David_jeshton | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

          Do you know how I know you’re crazy?  You think one politician is better than the next.

          • Mr Willow | Feb 2, 2012 at 4:05 pm |

            Do you know how I know he’s crazy? He keeps using subject lines, as if he were sending an e-mail. 

            Oh, and the mindless babble. 

          • Anarchy Pony | Feb 2, 2012 at 9:19 pm |

            You really gotta wonder, why the hell is he on disinfo at all? And why is he plugging Salamander- er I mean Newt? And that maniac West, and why in this topic about RFID chips…

        • Anarchy Pony | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:58 pm |

          Your mindless petty nationalism is adorable. 

          • 1776rememberyourrights777 | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

            COMMY…..GO FUCK YOURSELF…PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE TRAITORS….HAVE A NICE TRIP WITH YOUR BITCH PRESIDENT Subject: [disinfo] Re: Mythbusters Banned From Discussing RFID By Visa And Mastercard

          • Anarchy Pony | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

            Traitors to what? And who’s president? Not mine. You are pathetic. Your every breath is a wasted one as you slog through life as an ignorant cretin, mindlessly propping up broken and imaginary constructs. Take your boot licking authoritarian garbage somewhere else you worthless troll. 
            When the best you can level at me is to call me a commie and a traitor, all it does is show you for the mindless drone that you are. You have no real arguments, no real reasoning, just canned prefabricated ideology handed to you from your masters that you spew without second thought.

          • And he can’t even spell “commie” correctly.

          • Anarchy Pony | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

            It makes me sad, someone blast All Along the Watchtower.

          • eyeoftheaxis | Feb 3, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

            and so I did 🙂

          • Calypso_1 | Feb 3, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

            I can think of no other song that so well expresses my general sentiments about life on planet earth.

        • How about you get hell out of our country?

        • hahaha “country” what a quaint little concept in this post-national crypto-anarchy world we live in. Feed the beast if you want, but others are simply turning away.

        •  “Your country,” jerk? YOUR COUNTRY, you arrogant waste of valuable air space??? It’s MY country, too — A$$HOLE! Don’t you DARE tell me or any other AMEFRICAN to get out! You don’t want to be around us, fine — haul your sorry butt to some paradise like Somalia or North Korea.

          You insult the nation and the decency and memory of all Americans by wrapping your filthy trash not just in the flag, but in our ORIGINAL FLAG. You think that makes you a patriot, Jerkola? WRONG. It makes you a fraction of an inch this side of TRAITOR.

      • 1776rememberyourrights777 | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

        THIS IS GOING ON TODAY FOLKS!!!”NEWT/WEST”2012 OR”BREWER/WEST”2012 mittens to SPINELESS Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:19:21 -0800

        • sonicbphuct | Feb 8, 2012 at 5:39 pm |

           just when the world starts to depress me, someone comes along and provides the entertainment!
          Mad men make the doldrums of wage slavery fun!!!

          btw, who’s mittens, who’s spineless and what’s the rest of the message?!?! Inquiring Minds want to know!

        • hahaha LOL you actually think Newt is different from the current guy.

          No really, LOL!!

      • 1776rememberyourrights777 | Mar 18, 2012 at 9:54 am | Devvy
        May 12, 2011
        My column
        Wednesday May 11 has brought a ton of email with questions about a legal process known as Quo Warranto.
        I must repeat that I
        am not an attorney nor have I had any legal training. However, I can read and I have spent the equivalent of months in reading time on all the lawsuits filed regarding Obama/Soetoro’s birth certificate and the issue of natural born citizen. There are many superb legal analysis dealing with the issue of standing for plaintiffs in those lawsuits. If a person really wants to understand this issue, you have to spend the time doing the research and evaluating the submissions by attorneys involved going back to 2008. There just isn’t any other way to understand complicated legal issues.
        In my column
        yesterday, The Conundrum of Removing Obama/Soetoro From Office, I provided foot notes for very important legal analysis by lawyers who are experts in constitutional law and the subject matter. I selected those four as they were germane to that column. Once you read them, one can fully understand why I used them.
        Over the past 2 1/2
        years, I have continued to read postings on the following sites: Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Stephen Pidgeon and Dr. Orly Taitz, as well as filings by Cort Wrotnowski. All attorneys (except Cort) involved in cases against Barry Soetoro.
        Many of their filings in federal court have been posted so we can learn the
        arguments and law.
        To answer one
        question that came in via email:

        “An interesting
        point of view regarding Barry as a usurper rather than just a fraud. It made me
        wonder if the same method could be used to remove judges for ‘usurping’ all the
        power that they have stolen for themselves over the
        Many states allow
        recall as a method to remove judges except for their state Supreme Court. As for
        removing judges below the Supreme Court Level using a Quo Warranto, I’m not
        sure. Every state has oversight judicial committees which follow procedures; I
        guess that one is for future research.
        The Quo Warranto is
        available at the state and federal level. Activist federal judges in this
        country have been running amok on the bench for decades. The Outlaw Congress
        has the legal authority to remove federal
        judges, but that has been as rare as a blizzard in Miami. As I have said
        for at least a dozen years, one of the biggest failures of Congress after
        Congress is their refusal to remove biased, activist judges. Just look at the
        Ninth “Silly” Circuit Court. Their decisions are over turned more times than a
        gymnast on the mat, yet those same judges continue to sit on the bench for life
        while we pay them to make bad decisions higher courts throw out.
        Without the benefit
        of LexisNexis, I did some more research (I’m sure there are many lawyers out
        there who know of more) and found this interesting case:
        district judge sends heavyweights to fight AG’s ouster

        “Brennan and
        Nolan want the Michigan Supreme Court to bypass the COA, which has original
        jurisdiction of Schuette’s quo warranto motion to unseat
        Here in Texas
        as well as many states I randomly checked have a quo warranto
        Texas Civil
        Practice & Remedies Code – Chapter 66 Quo Warranto
        Texas Civil
        Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.001 – Grounds

        “An action in
        the nature of quo warranto is available if: (1) a person usurps, intrudes into,
        or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office, including an office in
        a corporation created by the authority of this state; (2) a public officer does
        an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his
        Texas Civil
        Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.002 – Initiation Of

        “(a) If grounds
        for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of
        the proper county may petition the district court
        Texas Civil
        Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.003 – Judgment

        “If the person
        against whom the information is filed is found guilty as charged, the court: (1)
        shall enter judgment removing the person from the
        As for removing an
        individual at the federal level using a quo warranto, as I pointed out you must
        be able to qualify under Newman v. United
        States ex Rel. Frizzell. (Please take the time to read the entire
        Footnote 1 below.) I would not qualify. Going back to my previous column, I also
        believe Dr. Orly Taitz does not qualify. But, I think former presidential
        candidates Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes would be able to as they were directly
        impacted by Obama/Soetoro’s alleged election even though he was ineligible to
        appear on the ballot. Baldwin has declined, but I believe Dr. Keyes still could as I cited
        in my last column [emphasis mine]:

        “Quo warranto
        is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of
        an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or
        abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto
        will be denied. (People v. City of
        Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).)
        By the same token, because quo warranto serves
        to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the
        action. (People v. Bailey (1916)
        30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)”
        While that cite is
        from California law, I would think it could be argued the same applies at the
        federal level. Perhaps Dr. Keyes could sit down with some of the great attorneys
        involved in those citizenship cases like Stephen Pidgeon and Mario Apuzzo and discuss going for
        a straight federal Quo Warranto. They would be the ones to provide expert legal
        advice to Dr. Keyes.
        Let’s look at Newman
        Newman v. United States
        ex Rel. Frizzell (Emphasis mine)

        interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in
        regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who
        has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be
        elective or appointive.
        “Unless the right
        to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to
        persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the
        government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim
        in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and
        taxpayer of the United States.
        “As §§ 1538-1540,
        Code District of Columbia, apply to actions in quo warranto instituted by
        authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are
        general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of
        Columbia, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District construing
        those sections is reviewable by this Court under § 250, Judicial
        I know it’s easy to
        accuse me of being an arm chair quarterback after the fact. A person who has no
        legal training, but that isn’t the case. In my columns since early 2009, I have
        raised the legal issue of this ‘thing’ called a quo warranto by reading and
        learning from Leo Donofrio. As a matter of fact, there is another lawsuit that
        has run its course, meaning denied for hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, you
        might find of interest: Rodearmel v.
        Clinton. That lawsuit was
        filed in January 2009 on behalf of a 19-year veteran of the Foreign
        Service Officer under the State Department, David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col.
        in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. While I support and
        respect Judicial Watch in their pursuit of making sure no one is above the law,
        I simply did not understand why they didn’t use the Quo Warranto for Rodearmel’s

        The defendants (mother government) moved to dismiss and
        in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the
        bottom of page 25:

        6 “The
        D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack
        the appointment of an official (as opposed to attacking an action of that
        official) will rarely if ever have standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729
        F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the same case, the court suggested that
        the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a
        writ of quo warranto. See id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may
        only be brought by the Attorney General of the United States or the United
        States Attorney or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a
        private party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503;
        see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1”
        Footnotes found in
        legal filings are very important. What the one above says is quite plain and
        easy enough for even me to understand; let’s apply it to Rodearmel. He is
        attacking the appointment of an official (Hillary Clinton) which the court says
        “will rarely if ever have standing.” Pretty straight forward.

        why the U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari: (emphasis
        below is mine)

        WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the District Court dismissed for lack of

        “The appeal is
        therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”
        Does that mean the
        Supreme Court is saying jurisdiction belongs to the District Court in
        Washington, DC, under a Quo Warranto? It
        seems to me that is the case if you read Footnote 6 above:

        “observed that a
        plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official….the
        court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is
        through an action for a writ of quo warranto…”
        Going back to Newman v US ex Rel. Frizzell:

        “An interested person
        within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo
        warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself
        peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or
        Rodearmel most
        certainly has an interest in the office (Secretary of State) peculiar to himself
        (He is an employee of the State Department and the Secretary of State is Hillary
        Clinton) and it is appointive. But, that case is over and Madame Clinton is
        still running around the world playing big shot accomplishing nothing. Another
        “teflon Don” given a pass by the U.S. Senate when they confirmed her appointment
        even though it is in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution
        – which many of them knew during the confirmation process.

        If you read
        the links in my previous column and the ones below, I believe you can understand
        and possibly agree with me that time and dismissals points to the Quo Warranto
        as the only legal remedy to remove Obama/Soetoro from office; emphasis below are
        § 16-3501.
        Persons against whom issued; civil action.
        A quo warranto may be
        issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the
        name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia
        usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred
        by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.
        The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
        § 16-3502.
        Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
        The Attorney General
        of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding
        pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third
        person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by
        leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly
        verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator
        files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court,
        in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of
        all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered
        from and paid by the defendant.
        § 16-3503.
        Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act;
        If the Attorney
        General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding
        on the request of a person interested, the
        interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have
        the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth
        in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by
        any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the
        interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section
        16-3502 as to security for costs. *End*
        There are a lot of
        very intelligent attorneys working on the citizenship issue, so I guess we’ll
        have to wait and see what happens with any remaining legal proceedings still
        on-going as well as the firestorm I believe will hit with Dr. Jerome Corsi’s new
        book due to be shipped May 17, 2011. At the risk of sounding like a broken
        record, the challenges to get Obama/Soetoro on state ballots in 2012 is probably
        going to result in more advanced lawsuits this time around, as well as possibly
        running up against any new laws passed by states requiring citizenship
        verification for a presidential candidate. Obama/Soetoro’s handlers know it and
        we know it.
        One note in
        another case:
        v. Salazar: New Court Filings Related To Obama’s Usurpation Including An
        Affidavit Regarding Obama’s New Forged Birth Certificate

        “New court
        filings related to Obama’s usurpation including an affidavit regarding his newly
        released forged birth certificate. The filings below were submitted on 5/11/2011
        in Louisiana in the Hornbeck v. Salazar lawsuit which is regarding Obama’s order
        to shut down offshore oil drilling. If the media did their job we would know
        what happened at yesterday’s oral arguments for this case.
        “UPDATE: Via
        atty. Taitz; Yesterday I had a an oral argument in Hornbeck v Salazar. This case
        deals with the fact that Obama administration de facto destroyed oil and gas
        industry in the gulf of Mexico by placing a moratorium and later, when the
        federal judge placed an injunction on the moratorium, Obama regime continued
        destroying the oil and gas industry by refusing to grant drilling permits. Most
        of the rigs left the region and moved to Brazil. Recently Obama visited Brazil
        and congratulated them on their offshore deep water drilling and stated that US
        will be their biggest customer, showing him as the the most antiAmerican
        president this nation ever saw.
        “My argument
        was that the damages suffered in the case at hand were rooted in the same
        problem: antiAmerican usurper in the White House, who got there by virtue of
        fraud and use of a forged birth certificate and invalid Social Security number,
        issued to another individual in another state.”
        This posting is from
        someone who says he/she attended the oral arguments in the case above; click
        here. It’s my understanding the documents scanned at
        this link were also submitted in the above case.

        1 – Constitutional
        Authority of Oregon Judges Challenged Why the “Quo Warranto” issue just will not
        go away!
        2 – NH
        Rep. Laurence Rappaport speaks with The Post & Email about Eligibility, the
        Constitution, and State Sovereignty
        3 – Judge
        Arthur J. Gonzalez claims right to commit fraud
        4 –
        How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced
        Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility
        5 – Jeffrey
        Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the
        14th Amendment.

        Gold: Ageless beauty and the one precious metal that
        never loses it’s value – unlike
        paper currency.
        Get the facts and protect
        your assets

      • 1776rememberyourrights777 | Mar 18, 2012 at 10:01 am |

        Let’s just VOTE him out and be done with it. This process takes too long and we are only 8 mos away from being our own judge and jury!!

        Joanna Laxton

        Region 4 Coordinator
        Newt 2012 Grassroots National Phone Team

        Joanna Laxton

        Region 4 Coordinator
        Newt 2012 Grassroots National Phone Team

    • Madp4400 | Feb 2, 2012 at 4:57 pm |

      You need to take your psych meds and lay down!

    •  Hey, troll — crawl back under your bridge and stay there, a$$hole.

    • 1776rememberyourrights777, your inability to comprehend that this story isn’t ABOUT the stuff you mindlessly rant about is beyond stunning or merely unbelievable.

      There’s a robbery in New York City. There’s a story about it on a national cable network. On the same day, the municipal government tears up my street in Nowheresville 2,000 miles from NYC to install a new sewage line, which the local media run but the calbe network that did run the story about the NYC robbery didn’t.

      So YOU raise holy hell with the network.

      Geessus H., the stupidity in the country is overwhelming.

  2. Mamagriff50 | Feb 2, 2012 at 11:24 am |

    Why don’t they just post (or leak) it to Youtube.   I’d love to see it.

    • Simiantongue | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm |

       Because they haven’t a lick of insubordination in them. If their masters tell them it’s a non subject then it’s not to be questioned.

    • FusionSaint | Feb 2, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

      First of all it never even got to the filming stage, as they said in the video they were setting up a meeting to get the materials and never got past that stage. Second of all, it is their living and I’m sure they aren’t willing to give it up to do something on NFC. It would be awesome if they did but I highly doubt you will ever see it. 

  3. Anarchy Pony | Feb 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm |

    RFIDs are real Big Brother level toys, given enough proliferation they would be able to track your every movement. They should be resisted at every turn.

    • PeaceMaker | Feb 2, 2012 at 2:11 pm |

      Relying on technology that we are NOT ALLOWED to understand just seems so stupid.

      So stupid.
      Talk about keeping hording power.
      “Here, use this. No, you aren’t allowed to understand it, but it’s good for you, trust us.”

  4. A.T. Murray | Feb 2, 2012 at 3:41 pm |

    Maybe Visa and Mastercard would like to “put the kibosh” on my Russian Artificial Intelligence that could conceivably read the details on any nearby radio-frequency ID (RFID) chip and transmit the data to an omniscient Russian supercomputer deep in Siberia.

  5. Mr Willow | Feb 2, 2012 at 4:02 pm |

    And yet, he identified the crux of the problem. 

    “Discovery backed way down, being a large corporation that depends upon the revenue of the advertisers.” 

    So long as that system remains, the public shall always be restricted from certain information. We shall remain ignorant so long as there is a corporate state. 

    • Ordinarily, I wouldn't say | Feb 3, 2012 at 11:22 pm |

       You’re not ignorant of it are you?  Enough with the BS anti-corporate yadda yadda yadda.  You found out — hell, anyone with half a brain already knew that RFID tech in credit cards was a stupid, dangerous idea that only stood to benefit the credit card companies and those customers dumb enough to want to pay for things by waving a piece of plastic in the air.  So what if Discovery wouldn’t or couldn’t air entertainment based on the idea?  Spend 15 minutes with pick-your-favorite-search engine and learn a thing or two and stop expecting the world to spoon-feed it to you.

      • Mr Willow | Feb 4, 2012 at 5:23 am |

        You’re not ignorant of it are you?

        Ignorant of what, exactly? 

        If you mean ignorant of the fact that RFID technology is stupid or dangerous because just about anyone can access the information provided they have the know-how, then no. 

        If you mean ignorant of the system I criticized because it is inherently exclusive in regard to the amount and/or quality of information it will readily allow the general public to know, then no. 

        And if you mean the system I criticized that revolves around money, instead of integrity,  so that, in the latter, Discovery would have aired the episode anyway, thereby exposing the vulnerabilities credit cards have, creating a crisis at Visa, MasterCard, etc. etc., but because said companies threatened to pull ad funding the potential purveyor of knowledge (Discovery, in this case) becomes complicit in keeping the public ignorant, then certainly not. 

        As much as it pains me, the general public is not going to research these things on their own, and as such could stand to benefit from having it presented to them in an entertaining way. Unfortunately, the networks are all corporate-owned, hence the resentment. 

        I am not expecting to be spoon-fed anything. 

        • yes, the genera public is not going to research these things on their own, the same is said of ignorant people who don’t understand RFID tech. and how to exploit it.  Can be said both ways.

      • You’re missing the point. This isn’t a story about RFID chips. This is a story about corporate censorship.

        • no, it’s a about a corporation choosing to censor its own content in order to not loose revenue.  that is supply/demand.  advertisers demand they not show it and Discovery supplies the removal of the show and keeps those advertising dollar. 

          it’s not corporate censorship on a public level, it’s advertising controlling what we see, which has been going on forever — you don’t think the gladiator games were publically sponsored do you?

          • dissembly | Feb 20, 2012 at 9:58 pm |

            “that is supply/demand.” & “it’s advertising controlling what we see, which has been going on forever”

            Um, dude, perhaps you missed the point, or haven’t been around for the political discussion that’s been going on for the last 200 years or so, but that is EXACTLY what people are annoyed about.

            Most people engaged in this debate: “Gee, I hate the way capitalism makes X happen, perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with capitalism.”

            You: “Why are you so surprised that X happens? That’s how capitalism works.”

            And the point just goes sailing over your head.

          • …and right over yours.

    • The general public remains ignorant, but the information has already been published and is available for those at so much as a dilettante level of technical interest (ie. Slashdot readers).

      • Thanks for making this point. I was wondering why everyone was so worked up over Discovery – a private company – making decisions based on the whims of its advertisers. If this is shocking to anyone, I’m shocked at the fact that they are shocked.

        Meanwhile, any one of us is welcome to do our own research, start a website, share the information and disseminate it how we choose.

        • I think the point of outrage isn’t just that a corporation is flexing it’s advertising muscle to stop a media corporation from airing an episode. The outrage is that they are squashing getting the information out there instead of fixing a problem they well know will lead to consumer problems, and by flexing that muscle they keep the less tech savvy public in the dark about the risks. 

          They not only aren’t doing anything about it, but they are doing what they can to make sure no one knows.

        • dissembly | Feb 20, 2012 at 9:54 pm |

          There’s also the fact that we don’t all have the time to go trawling through all the crank websites on the web, and if we wanted to start our own website, we’d hardly have the audience that mythbusters have. Or the time, or the money.

          It’s a barrier on the spread of information, erected for the express purpose of blocking the spread of information.

          It’s wearying to see people trot out the “Oh if you don’t like blah blah then just start your own blah blah” line.

          It very strongly reinforces the stereotype of techies: completely bloody ignorant about anything relating to human society and how it actually functions in the real world.

    • Asdkflasdf | Feb 6, 2012 at 6:28 am |

       ok, so what is the opposite of corporate state – communism/some other totalitarian system? I am pretty sure that flow of information would be a lot worse..

      • Mr Willow | Feb 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm |

        I appologise in advance, but. . . 

        Jesus Fucking Christ!!!

        Communism was never designed to be a totalitarian system. It was dreamed up by Marx to instate a horizontal power structure in which labourers own the means of production (Socialism), which eventually gives way to State ownership (which could be interpreted as entirely public ownership). It has never existed. It can’t exist so long as people still cling to their current notions of property. 

        The Soviet Union still operated under a capitalist system of economics, the only difference between that and the US currently is that the government existed as the only employer. It still existed as a system of making money, which you should know flies in the face of Marx and Engels model of Communism, which calls for the abolition of currency, where all take products “according to their need”. 

        My alternative, as I have described numerous times, would call for public ownership of the means of production, but the dissolution of the State (Social Anarchism, or Libertarian Socialism)—unless you interpret ‘the state’ as being ‘the public’—as I see it as completely unnecessary once labourers own the factories, teachers own the schools, artists own entertainment, doctors own the hospitals, and engineers own the infrastructure. (I explain why here: ) 


        A socialist economy would place the employees in any business in control of that business (you know, because that is what socialism is). As such, if a mine needed ventilation, it would get ventilation, because the individuals who actually work in the mine know they need ventilation; if some food additive were proved to be harmful (and I would preferably keep them out entirely), it would be removed because the people who ate the food would be the same ones adding the chemicals; if toys were found to contain lead, it would be removed immediately because the people assembling them would be the same who’s kids would be playing with them later—in other words, we probably wouldn’t need a government regulator so much because the only thing regulations do is protect the labourers of industry—and in most respects none of these problems would arise because every business (and therefore every worker within that business) would understand that any harmful action they would make would affect society negatively precisely because they themselves would continue to be members of society. They wouldn’t be utterly divorced from society through their separation by the private compounds in which they live or the circles of fellow corporate owners in which they all mingle. 

        Only then does government (beyond some sort of organisational entity) become unnecessary.  

        And by ‘own’, I mean oversee and direct. 

        Education would be absolutely free—with an object to encourage critical thought, creativity, and curiosity, not have students achieve higher test scores—healthcare would be free, and pretty much everything in association with these things (along with anything else deemed to be a public works) would be funded through public finance (if currency still exists) funds of which are allocated either by direct democratic process, or (on a more national level) through councils operating on a Participist model, consensus being made among the local areas, which is reported to the council house of that county, which is reported to the state council, which is then reported to the national council, the members of each being selected through sortition, which is random draw. 

        [and please be aware I am pretty damn flexible concerning these things, not an absolutist in any sense, but that is my suggestion]

        • Monkey See Monkey Do | Feb 8, 2012 at 12:05 am |

          It’s an uphill battle Mr. Willow. Nicely said though.

        •  Eh, nice try on defending Marx, but frankly, he was the single most harmful person to the Socialist cause since its inception.  His stances/actions crippled the International, led to some of the worst regimes in history (though, granted, they can’t really blame EVERYTHING on Marx, having tyrants of their own…but Marx did pave the way for their rise to power), and has generally left “socialism” and “communism” as two of the dirtiest words in politics.  The capitalists seem to have no greater friend, to be honest.  And I even wish I could say it was merely blind blundering about that led to this unfortunate chain of events, but it simply wasn’t, as Bakunin and others warned at the time of the dangers presented by the German Communist school of thought, in particular of their being a path to an even worse system than that capitalist one the International was aiming to overthrow.  It’s about time the Left pulls its head out of its ass and recognizes that Marx was simply wrong.  We needn’t demonize the man, as he was human, after all (that, and the Right will demonize him plenty for everyone anyhow), but I think it’s about time we look to non-Marxist socialism a bit more seriously.  Repeating the same mistakes will not serve the cause of the proletariat.

          • Mr Willow | Feb 18, 2012 at 5:37 pm |

            I wasn’t necessarily defending Marx, just clarifying his positions, because just about every time somebody mentions Marx, they automatically think of the Soviet Union, or Mao, when those tragedies were not in any way manifestations of Socialism or Communism as espoused by Marx. Because he and his ideas were popular, they only used Marx’s name to gain credibility with the populace, instating a totalitarian state dictatorship, when they should have instated things like workers councils. Instead of giving the means of production to the workers, the dictators kept all ownership for themselves. 

            but I think it’s about time we look to non-Marxist socialism a bit more seriously.

            My alternative,. . . would call for public ownership of the means of production, but the dissolution of the State (Social Anarchism, or Libertarian Socialism)—unless you interpret ‘the state’ as being ‘the public’—as I see it as completely unnecessary once labourers own the factories, teachers own the schools, artists own entertainment, doctors own the hospitals, and engineers own the infrastructure 

          • dissembly | Feb 20, 2012 at 10:36 pm |

            The problem with that is that the state:

            1) Can’t be blinked out of existence; it’s a result of class society, not the cause of it. Eliminating the state would lead to the recreation of a new capitalist state.

            2) Is a necessary tool for the good guys as much as for the bad; again, because a post-revolutionary society is still surrounded by enemies, still has people who remember being capitalists (probably still are overseas), still has bureaucrats trained in the management of capitalism, still has ‘property crime’ until a super-abundance can be established etc.

            3) Is necessary to enable representation, to prevent the emergence of unelected leaders.

            4) Is necessary to enable democratic planning and co-ordination between different areas of the economy, including a foreign trade monopoly. If the metalworkers and the miners are in conflict (because the miners raise their currency on the international market while the metalworkers need our currency to be lower to sell their products overseas), then you need a democratic structure for them to form a common economic plan rather than one undermining the other.

            The state has to die away post-post-revolution, and it has to do so naturally, otherwise democracy is just a pipe dream, and you’ll see nothing but the devolution into some sort of primitive capitalism.

            Democracy and representation (i.e. deliberation, election with the right of recall, etc) are absolutely necessary for a truly liberatory movement/society. Anarchism and “libertarian” socialism are inherently authoritarian – they take away the right to deliberate and choose, and they take away the power that comes from having an organisation that is capable of action in line with the wishes of the majority. The alternative to the “tyranny of the majority”, championed in anarchism, is the tyranny of minority dissenters – who rather than simply dissenting and arguing their case to win over the majority, are actually given the right to disrupt the entire process without having to convince anyone else of their position.

            Anarchism is an authoritarian tendency.

            The atrocities of the USSR (and China, Cuba, Nth Korea, etc) did not come about because a state still existed; they came about because, in desperate situations and impoverished societies, with no backup from any surrounding ally, the bad guys are quite capable of winning while the mass of the people are exhausted. Reaction sets in. In some cases (e.g. Cuba, China, Nth Korea), the revolutionaries didn’t follow anything resembling a Marxist line to begin with. In fact, they actively discouraged Marxist revolution in the cities. (And they had the dubious “ally” of the USSR.)

          • Mr Willow | Feb 21, 2012 at 12:02 am |

            1) [the state] Can’t be blinked out of existence, it’s a result of class society,

            You describe yourself as a Marxist (at the end of your reply to Server), therefore a socialist, meaning you are pushing for a classless society, which is what Marx advocated. Ergo, if the State is the result of a class society, then in a classless one, the State would be non-existent. 

            2) I don’t imagine the State falling to pieces or being smashed. That would only allow an autocrat, or some despotic regime, to assume power through either force or rhetoric.

            “Yes, there is chaos, but if you give power to me, I will make everything better.” (that sort of thing)

            It should be dissolved. How quickly depends upon the people involved in the transition. 

            3) Why do we need representation, or leaders? I have a voice, an opinion of how things should be, and am able to voice concerns of my own ability. That is how society is managed currently, through ideas and voices. The problem is that there are too few voices heard, and too few ideas involved in the process. 

            If we must have representatives, let them be randomly selected, lest they be selected by manipulative forces before they are ever elected by the public. We should vote not upon the people with ideas, but the ideas themselves. 

            4) In terms of foreign trade, I agree, and you can reference paragraph 2 of #3. In the case of domestic trade, let the miners and metalworkers debate the matter. What is more democratic than that? If they cannot agree, then see #3. 

            Anarchism and “libertarian” socialism are inherently authoritarian – they take away the right to deliberate and choose, and they take away the power that comes from having an organisation that is capable of action in line with the wishes of the majority.

            Wait. . . what? 

            Anarchism’s entire foundation is anti-authoritarian, in so far as that its basis is the advocacy of a horizontal power structure based upon coöperation, mutual aid, and consensus-based governance—the act of gaining consensus being almost the definition of deliberation, involving discussion, reflection, and debate. 

            Any organisation that comes about because of that deliberation would be a result of the opinions of all involved, and all decisions that said organisation would make would involve the opinions of all its members. 

            That is inherently democratic.

          • dissembly | Feb 20, 2012 at 10:11 pm |

            “Non-Marxist socialism” – what, like anarchism? In which you have no political party, no right to elect a representative (but every right in the world for one to emerge unelected)?

            Or the New Left – in which you support third-world guerilla movements, hoping that a bunch of guys with guns will save the day?

            Or perhaps you mean reformist socialism, in which you vote for capitalist political parties to manage capitalism just a bit better?

            Or the utopians, in which a magical genie blinks three times and the social system you meticulously designed in your unpublished amateur sci-fi novel just appears out of nowhere?

            Marxism is an advance on all of these movements. Marx was right about the 1st International, he was absolutely right to try and get rid of Bakunin, Lenin was right about imperialism, and how to build a truly democratic party, and revolution, Trotsky was right about the third world, about permanent revolution… Marxism has a long tradition of getting things right.

            It also has a long tradition of being defeated with guns and corrupt reactionaries in its ranks, or turning into a bunch of stupid university students yelling slogans at nobody and engaging in top-down cultish politics, but that’s true of every liberatory tradition ever (especially anarchism).

            Most importantly, when it doesn’t get things right, the best Marxists have a long tradition of re-evaluating their positions, rather than shoving them under the carpet or lying about them, or abandoning everything good by looking for some cultishly “pure” history/leaders/thinkers that never made any mistakes (trust me, if you find them, they’re lying).

            Proud to be an anarchist who encountered Marxism, re-evaluated his ideas, and decided that Marx was spot-on. Will never stop learning and developing.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Feb 21, 2012 at 10:41 am |

            You need to re-evaluate the ideas of anarchism aswell. Dont stagnate on Marxism, dont stop evolving – these are some of the best ideas i’ve taken from anarchism.

          • Isnt everyone in america allowed to own shares in publicaly traded companies? Isnt this ownership of the means of production? Apple for instance or microsoft, are not owned by individual capitalists with their fat cigars and monacles buyt by the public at large – mainly hedge funds and retirement funds. Communism!

  6. spanchal257 | Feb 2, 2012 at 4:33 pm |

    Hmmm, just realized something, security through obscurity doesnt work… Also, if this is a copyright issue, shouldnt it fall under fair use?

  7. Redacted | Feb 2, 2012 at 5:35 pm |

    The ID Cards the military uses (CAC cards) have a little RFID chip in them, and the Army at least seems to have been issuing card covers that neutralize the effect when not in use.

    Why? “There is hardware available to ANYONE that can read your sensitive personal information on the card.” Straight from the Army’s own posted notice.

    • Calypso_1 | Feb 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm |

      The same encryption is used in auto passive anti theft systems (ignition disabling) and remote keylocks.

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 2, 2012 at 8:42 pm |

      that’s pretty scary actually. debit card in canada all contain the rfid chip, and all debit readers now require you to have a chipped card so they can read them. ai ya….

      • Anarchy Pony | Feb 2, 2012 at 9:14 pm |

        Well they got track you filthy lefty terrorists. You might say something true out loud and cause the obedient masses’ heads to explode.

      • Newest_1 | Feb 3, 2012 at 2:48 pm |

        Canadian debit cards have CHIP and Pin technology they do not all have RFID … YET .. you do see them on a lot of Mastercard CC’s though signified by the little radio waves on the front of the card

      • Chester Pape | Feb 3, 2012 at 3:46 pm |

        The smartcard chip in Canadian (and European) Debit and Credit cards is NOT RFID, it requires a physical electrical connection to read them.

        However if you have one of the credit cards that you can tap and go (Mastercard’s version is called Paypass) those are the potential problem

        • Sorry, I have a CIBC VISA, and yes, it has the little waves logo.  This means RFID, does it not?  I am not thrilled with this, but I only have two choices, drop plastic and all it’s merits, or hope some other people end up suffering for VISA, American Express & Mastercard’s bad security.

      • You are probably confusing chipped cards with RFID.

        Cards that have RFID can be used by just tapping them on the terminal, without inserting them anywhere. Chipped cards are different — they need to be inserted and the chip must make an electrical contact with the machine for it to work.

        • Jin The Ninja | May 12, 2012 at 9:21 am |

          not that i don’t appreciate the clarification, but this article is quite old. and several people already corrected my error. but thanks.

          • Calypso_1 | May 12, 2012 at 11:08 am |

            It’s often hilarious to see the comments left months after an article was posted, especially if they turn into an ongoing thread.  : )

          • Jin The Ninja | May 12, 2012 at 11:34 am |

            lol, i mean it’s not a big deal, but seems like a rehash…;)

    • NOT True.  They are not RFID.  They are computer chips that have to physically inserted to be read.  Also, the information on them is encrypted.  The user must type in their password into the card reader software to access the information.

    • andrewDover | Feb 3, 2012 at 4:32 pm |

      What sensitive information do you think is on a PIV card that can be read through the contactless interface?

      Unique numbers yes.

    • Check points like Customs read our cards before we even get to the gate. I don’t think they want us to have card covers. I never had one.

  8. Old story… Yawn!

  9. The device to read those chips costs <$15 US, and can be ordered online. They can be powered by a netbook in a backpack, and the person only needs to pass within a foot of you to read it.  Worse, the people won't even be looking for "you". Instead, they can just troll through crowded malls and walk out with a text document filled with credit card and other identity based information.  Same with passports…an even worse item to have stolen, I'd argue.  I use the sleeves from the web site: There's a TV offer thingy for $20 for a pack that I think had 8 credit/debit card covers and 2 passport covers. i saw them on something like Shark Tank and, obviously, those cats got on board fast. LOL

    Agree with the other comments that decry the corporate state. I don't begrudge a soul their legally made money. But that our laws protect the corporate state, while seeking little more than more despotic, pedantic, control over those who "should" be protected.

  10. Sideshow_paul | Feb 4, 2012 at 3:42 pm |

    The only thing I can’t figure out is what is the finance benefit of this? The card companies already track you via purchases. So why push this insecure system?

    • because it’s actually a very cheap, robust system. and it’s good business selling the system to shops(the parts for the point of sale system cost the same as 6 bigmac meals).

      the finance benefit for visa and mastercard is quite simply less costs in the long run. they’re not being used for purpose of tracking – however, they could be used for that(in a much easier fashion than actually charging money off from your card in your pocket).

      the americans need a new system though, the mag stripes you’ve stuck to for so long suck, no myth about that, since chips aren’t used pretty much at all(some say the chips, as used in eu, security has been broken, but that’s beside the point, point being that it’s easy to skim mag cc’s).

      magnetic stripe cards + signing on a friggin tft screen is just sooo bad system..

  11. Planetdcc | Feb 5, 2012 at 5:16 am | wanna know how Old and bad old technology is…look it up on youtube.

  12. Jin The Ninja | Feb 8, 2012 at 11:27 am |

    same to you.

  13. What was the original myth?

  14. its interesting because i read just read a story in the newspaper that said
    gvt agencys are using to to hold and send out information via radio waves along  with gps devices
    (a man is suing for them placing one in his jeep /us vs.jones)  ..interesting

  15. No one has mentioned United States passports… they’ve had RFIDs in them since 2006.

  16. Akiva Potok | Feb 11, 2012 at 5:57 am |

    This actually points clearly to a mistake the American public has made about their televisions.  Advertiser supported television is NOT a venue for free speech!  It is a venue whose speech that is  beholden to the advertisers who pay for that speech.  It is not free speech at all.  If you want free speech watch PBS, or read the newspaper.  Keep in mind that CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are all advertiser supported TV networks.  News that is paid for by advertisers is not protected by the 1st amendment!  Such news programs are supported by their advertisers and therefore cannot say what the advertisers forbid them to say, less CNN etc, go out of business.  Here is an example of where capitalism and freedom (of speech) are enemies of each othert!!  

    • Cerberus79 | Feb 14, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

       Free speech on PBS? You are kidding aren’t you?

      PBS’ infamous attempt to misinform on the Iran problem by doctoring  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s statement that Iran has no nuclear weapons is just one of their genuflections to the
      conservatives in government who control their funding.

      • What? PBS is the most liberal media of all. Funded by Democrats.

        • Jin The Ninja | May 6, 2012 at 11:34 am |

           go back to fox news, misinformed troll.

          • LKLSPEEDY | Aug 2, 2012 at 6:39 am |

            there we go liberal name calling, that was on CBS, do a little  reading, before open mouth insert foot

      • LKLSPEEDY | Aug 2, 2012 at 6:36 am |

        sorry that is liberals that wont let defunding pbs since they were using tax payers money to elect obamo,because they are tax exempt

    • If you want free speech watch PBS, or read the newspaper.”  

      Your brainwashing is complete, please move forward.

    • David Wade | Jul 16, 2012 at 5:05 am |

      PBS is right up there with MSNBC (i.e. NBCNEWS)  They are quite biased and you should not trust them unless you are biased as well and in the same direction.  I used to believe that PBS was righteous, but if that is where you get your news, they will lead you astray.

  17. the controversy this causes will just draw even more attention to the issue, and people will just look up the info online.

  18. Powerful. Showcase the shortfalls of technology and BIG BROTHER – imagine our RFID stuff is hackable and trackable and the industry wont tell us and blocks the info

  19. Of course they don’t want this info public, it would only benefit crooks and wanna be’s.

    • Thunderflame | Feb 14, 2012 at 11:06 am |

      Crooks and wannabes find this stuff out on their own.  Spreading this info benefits the average person by making them realize there’s a problem that they need to address.

  20. Hellfire7885 | Feb 13, 2012 at 4:40 am |

    There is only one answer guys.


  21. i wouldnt trust what the mythbusters have to say on anything important… they failed miserably in regards to 911..

    if you need to rely on mythbusters for determining whats true or not, it doesnt day much for your cognisant ability.

    • ” they failed miserably in regards to 911..”

      You mean like where they show the large steel beam bending after it being heated with burning jet fuel?  Yeah, that sure sucked.

  22. Cretinsquarterly | Feb 19, 2012 at 7:57 pm |

    and yet RFIDs aren’t even necessary anymore as we all have a cell phone

    •  I don’t.

    • dissembly | Feb 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm |

      It’s like the “old” joke… who needs the CIA when you have Facebook.

    • and yet RFIDs aren’t even necessary anymore as we all have a cell phone..”

      So next time I want to buy gas for my car I should just show them my cell phone?

    • David Wade | Jul 16, 2012 at 4:57 am |

      I don’t have a cell phone.  They don’t work up here in the mountains.  No towers within 30 miles, and those are downhill a thousand feet.  However, RFID tags work great up here.  Mike invented them to count the Elk out in the Valle Grande without actually having to “cowboy up” and ride the ten miles across the Valle Grande to try to count a sleeping Elk.  

      What!  You can read an RFID tag from 10 miles away with little more than a Yagi?  Is that what those rangers with the radio antennas on that tripod were doing?  Sure thing Boss.

  23. The ironic thing, at least to me, is that Myth Busters is touted by skeptics, most of whom don’t believe in conspiracies. So MB finds out what us “nut jobs” already know-that organizations do things in secret and make every effort to keep that secret. If credit card companies are willing to suppress information to protect RFID use in the business world, why wouldn’t governments use RFID for security?

  24. Looks like Mythbusters is getting a taste of its own medicine. That programme they did on the Apalling ‘Lunar’ Mission was an example of moral cowardice of the most debased kind. Never watched the programme again after that pathetic display. 

    • Frankly I think they nailed the lid on the coffin of the last remaining Moon landing hoaxers.  Is that what upsets you?  I mean, what part of the demonstrations did you not understand?   Where did they “cheat”?  The moon landing hoax conspiracy was pretty weak from the get-go, I could have piled on many more convincing arguments myself, but at some point you almost feel sorry for the losers in the moon land conspiracy community.

  25. ANONYMOUS | Feb 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm |


  26. OldTimerOriginal | Mar 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm |

    LOL! It’s easier to get classified military info than this?  Pop Sci has covered RFID pretty well and it’s all over the web.  Still, funny.

  27. aletheas | Mar 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm |

    There is an incredible fascination with RFID chips. It fascinates evangelical Christians who believe that a final world ruler will implement a system that causes all people to wear a mark on their hand or forehead in order to buy, sell and hold a job. Sounded pretty far fetched in the 80’s. Now it sounds like a good idea in order to protect our own personal security. In fact there are better ideas than a chip being passed around, a laser tatoo which holds more information than an encyclopedia for instance. All your personal health info, accounting, etc. It would be very useful technology in the case of medical emergencies and would eliminate the billions lost in theft. Personally I think the idea is fantastic except the Bible says that it is the “antiChrist” who implements it. The “Mark of the Beast” as it is commonly known seems to be becoming a fantastic reality. At least it’s precursors and prototypes are here already. It will likely take some serious economic turmoil to motivate people to “tatoo” themselves as it evokes all sorts of pararnoia in the minds of any sane person.

    • Chris Worthington | May 25, 2012 at 9:14 am |

      You think it’s great that a government could identify you with a tag embedded on your skin? What about your 4th amendment rights?

      If they can sick the IRS on political opponents, what could authorities do in public with an ID tattooed directly on you?

      There is ONE group that tried this though. The Nazis liked to tag (certain) people with ID numbers. Does it still sound like a good idea?

      • Chris. I think it is a horrible idea. Problem is the “mark” is a inevitable consequence of our current economical status quo. It is also unfulfilled biblical prophecy. It certainly is a bad idea and a control tactic. However it will come to pass. So what is going to motivate this will have to sound like a good idea to lawmakers, economists and the general public. A bigger question for you is this. Once you see this and any other Bible prophecy fulfilled what does that tell you about the truth.

  28. they should have never called TI.   it’s like proving a myth about toyota brake pedals and calling toyota’s brake manufacturer factory to assist… or proving a myth that you could crack your iphone and copy applications from the web to which don’t have apples approval and calling an apple technician to help with that.

    Here ya go you lazy bastards.
    no the american corporate state isn’t restricting information.  yes you may have to purchase hooked on phonic and relearn how to read.  Granted its only wikipedia, but google has 11 million more pages of info.  As far as remaining ignorant, speak for yourself Mr Willow

    Are you really that mad at credit card companies for trying to protect the reputation of the technology they are attempting to sell?  

    caveat emptor 

  30. A private company wanting them to NOT reveal weaknesses or operating methods of their customer’s financial dealings is no problem and perfectly understandable. What I find far more disturbing about Mythbusters is their forelock-tugging worship of all things police, military or government. 

  31. Monkey See Monkey Do | May 25, 2012 at 10:22 am |

  32. CLICK, a BBC program, had a demonstration a few years ago showing how a laptop and a reader available for about 70 dollars enabled anyone to read RFID chips.

  33. ArcaneCode | Jun 20, 2012 at 10:54 am |

    The minute you accept advertising of any kind, you are compromised. This is yet another good example of it. This not only goes for entertaining shows but news outlets as well. And yes, that includes PBS. They may call them sponsors, but they are in fact advertisements.

    The only way we can trust our news sources is if we can guarantee they aren’t compromised somehow. I believe a consumer oriented model would be the only way to do that, whether that comes from subscribers or contributors. Right now I only know of one show that’s doing that, They use listener contributions to survive, and while not getting rich they do seem to be getting by. That’s where I get my news from, because I can trust that no advertiser is calling them up going “no, you will not run that story” as in what happened to Mythbusters.

  34. I used to watch mythbusters until they had that stupid episode with odumbo on it,haven’t watched since.

  35. Any person worth their salt could find out this information very easily.I want to know who came up with the brilliant idea to have odumbo on and ruin what was my favorite show.It was creepy to see them fawning all over odumbo,a show like this shouldn’t be made political.

  36. David Wade | Jul 16, 2012 at 5:38 am |

    Almost got trapped into the discussion, but I inadvertently looked at the URL.  This is all a game for you guys isn’t it?  All that “Sophomoric Political Stuff” you are spouting is just Troll Bait, and I almost fell for it.  Good Job!  I didn’t really need that hour of my life.  Nothing to see here, move along…

  37. I don’t know what you guys are on about.  I actually saw that episode, and I’m in Australia!
    Seems to me that America is getting a lot like China, where the government now controls the media and decides what you should watch…and what you should not!
    Land of the free? Ha! Not anymore!

  38. Jamie and Adam should have told them ‘We’re doing it; you don’t like it, you can go fuck yourselves!’ We have to stand up to these dickheads.

Comments are closed.