General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2655580

      This is only one result of a bigger problem

      by joer ·

      In reply to So the US Congress is out to censor the internet..again

      You’re right, Jaqui, this is something that should send chills down the spine of every American. But it’s only one small consequence (another one of those dreaded unintended consequences) of a much larger underlying problem.

      It’s been said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have. (The person who originally said that, by the way, lost that particular election.) And now we see an example of some people in government who want to take away the one thing that lies at the foundation of our Republic — free speech. Actually, this is only one more attempt; there have been many; some have even been successful.

      For the past four decades, the growth of government influence and control over every-day American citizens has grown at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, when people make government more responsible for every-day problems, they relinquish their rights to affect the outcome. If a person gives up responsibility, then the right to determine a solution is also relinquished.

      Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without accepting the other. Americans have been giving up both. And when they realize what they’ve really lost, it just might be too late.

    • #2655567

      I woudn’t worry about it too much.

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to So the US Congress is out to censor the internet..again

      The definition of “paid efforts” as “communications to 500 or more” will have the Supremes in stitches.

      I notice this article doesn’t say how “stimulate grassroots lobbying” is defined. It also doesn’t mention an exemption for congressmen. Since most congressmen send mail that could be interpreted as inciting grassroots action to over 500 constituents, this would require them to register also. That ain’t gonna happen; that realization is probably why Vitter has reversed course.

      As an aside, every time you post something about the U.S. government, my initial reaction is, “Why does that Canadian care?” I have to remind myself you have family on this side of the border.

      • #2654970

        As I posted on

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to I woudn’t worry about it too much.

        one blog, if this passes, I’ll start a blog for Americans to send me their comments and I’ll publish them, since as a Canadian the US law wouldn’t apply ]:)

        might get my site banned from being seen by Americans though 😉

        • #2653814

          Will that count?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to As I posted on

          Aren’t you encouraging grassroots activism by encouraging others to work around U.S. law?

          Never mind, I doubt there are 500 people who read your blog or TR 😀

    • #2655501

      So,

      by ed woychowsky ·

      In reply to So the US Congress is out to censor the internet..again

      How’s the IT job market in Canada?

      • #2654971

        it’s

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to So,

        poor, they are outsourcing to that 3rd world nation just south of us 😉

        Actually, most large business operations in Canada are just the Canadian division of US operations.

        • #2642964

          Good thing I live NORTH of Canada.

          by rfink ·

          In reply to it’s

          It’s cold here this time of year. 🙂

        • #2642962

          3rd world nation

          by ed woychowsky ·

          In reply to it’s

          That explains the state of the roads along the Delaware.

        • #2654096

          What, you don’t like “quaint and picturesque?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to 3rd world nation

          BTW, it’s not just those along the Delaware River that share those traits.

          Personally, I find such drives eminently preferable to and so much more relaxing than those such as I-95 have to offer.

    • #2654966

      Hey, if it works for a good ally, like Musharraf, …

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to So the US Congress is out to censor the internet..again

      Personally, I find it difficult to believe that such a measure would have even a glimmer of hope of surviving a challange as to its Constitutionality.

      When it comes to members of Congress, I am reminded of the adage that one should hire the handicapped because they’re fun to watch.

      • #2654961

        hmmm.. that gives me an idea….

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Hey, if it works for a good ally, like Musharraf, …

        Maybe a collection of items about what is and isn’t appropriate for legislation, with reasons why, so we can all send it to our respective legislative bodies over and over again until they grab a brain and quit trying to make laws that are not enforceable.

        • #2654960

          First we need to ensure that they can, will & do read; then, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to hmmm.. that gives me an idea….

          they’ll need to be trained in the art of critical thinking.

          By the time those are accomplished, we’ll need to start all over again with the freshmen.

          You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it float on its back and blow bubbles.

        • #2654954

          easy

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to First we need to ensure that they can, will & do read; then, …

          to make sure they can read, ban gui software from the schools.

          make them use a command line only from the start, they will have to learn to read then. ]:)

          since the pretty gui is designed to promote illiteracy.

        • #2654944

          Hmmm. I like that.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to easy

          To that I would add:

          1) No mouse or other pointing device;

          2) No copy/paste function, so that they’re forced to think about what they’re typing; and,

          2) Dial-up access only, and that only during limited times, so they’ll find it easier to read what’s already been presented to them rather than to quickly cruise off in search of a lighter read.

        • #2654938

          what?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Hmmm. I like that.

          give students internet access in class? are you nuts?
          way to much distraction online, they wouldn’t pay attention in class then. make them use their outside of school time to go online.

        • #2654933

          [i][u]Limited[/u][/i] access, to study materials only.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to what?

          This so that we can control their progress, thus ensuring that they can’t skip over that which disinterests them.

        • #2654928

          it’s called

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to what?

          “homework” for a reason 😉

          you do realise that a lot of isps would have to stop interfering with linux if they did this? after all, there is no command line in windows or macos. ]:)

        • #2654910

          Well, I can’t speak for MacOS; but, for Windows, all we need do is …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to what?

          1) Restrict them to a DOS box; and,

          2) Limit communications to FTP.

        • #2654905

          for windows

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to what?

          we need to get rid of it.
          the idea is to have them learn, with dos there isn’t anything they can do, the capabilities are to limited 😉

        • #2654444

          So force

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to what?

          The use of Mac OS X only and strip the GUI to the Terminal window. Make them learn Unix.

        • #2642965

          DOS limited?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to what?

          Not at all.

          Consider what they’l be forced to learn by having to write in machine code and/or assembler!

      • #2653772

        I thought the same thing about the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance bill

        by joer ·

        In reply to Hey, if it works for a good ally, like Musharraf, …

        I thought it, too, would be shot down in the Supreme Court. Surprise! Surprise! It’s became a law that not only squelched a form of freedom of speech, but it actually screwed up campaign finance even more!

      • #2653751

        Glimmer of Hope

        by demosthanese ·

        In reply to Hey, if it works for a good ally, like Musharraf, …

        This thing could make it. If you read the other articles etc about that particular subject you’ll find that there is no oversite to the charitable contributions governing body. They can take funds generated for, say, the “save the snowy owl” campaign, and divert it to the “my wallet is really really fat” fund. But that is besides the point.

        The scarier thing is that somone actually brought this up. Why, in America, would a congressman decide that his constituants needed silencing? And then, go about writting a proposal on how to do it! Because that congressman is up to something that he shouldnt be, know people will talk about it, and wants to throw them in jail for it! Vitter, the guy that sponsored this thing, is the same dude that got caught in the madame scandel not too long ago. You can make your own connections there, but I’ll say this: For a christian, running on a family friendly campaign, hes not really living up to his word to begin with.

    • #2654412

      How the h#ll else do you expect them…

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to So the US Congress is out to censor the internet..again

      to keep the serfs in their place? Ignorance isn’t bliss, it’s serfdom. Same damn ‘spirit’ is behind the dumbing down of the educational process, the biased media, the crap that comes out of hollywood…

      ”around spirit because I don’t mean any religious reference of any kind and lower case h in hollywood because there ain’t nuthin uppercase about ’em.

    • #2654411

      Canada becoming ‘liberal fascist’?

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to So the US Congress is out to censor the internet..again

      appears they discriminate against fat people in the socialized medicine waiting for operations, because ‘they shouldn’t have gotten fat’

Viewing 5 reply threads