General discussion

Locked

Is this America or China?

By wbock ·
The American Spectator's Prowler column published today has a disturbing report on the plans by the Democratic Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman to regulate political speech on the Internet.

In addition to details of methods Waxman is considering to rein in conservative talk radio, The Prowler reports on Waxman's desire to use the power of the federal government to investigate amd control political content on the Internet.

The article quotes an unnamed committee staffer as saying of Waxman's power grab:

"Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

"Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information. We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."

"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about. The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."

The article reports that Waxman intends to work with Democratic Party President Barack Hussein Obama's nominee to be chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, who is awaiting confirmation by the Democrat controlled Senate, to investigate and regulate free speech on the Internet.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

38 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Oppression is oppression.

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Is this America or China?

What difference does it make where it happens?
Why is anyone surprised to see it happen here?

Collapse -

To your spatial

by santeewelding In reply to Oppression is oppression.

I would add temporal.

I would also add that, left to itself, featuring a drift of content and consumption that some don't like, those some will, because they think they can: then, now, and in the future.

Collapse -

This is America. . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Is this America or China?

.....The America people have voted to have. The America that takes the fruits of one's labor and gives it to another. The America that gives up all individual rights in exchange for ignoring all personal responsibilities. The America that feels entitled to that which was not earned. The America that is now a mere figment of what it once was and what it was intended to be.

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For what was once a light,
For all to see, for all to want
That was all good and right.
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
But now is just a memory
Of what was liberty.

Collapse -

What government should not be

by jdclyde In reply to This is America. . . . .

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

What one person received without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them,

and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,

that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Collapse -

oh really?

by jck In reply to What government should no ...

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.

Please name one wealthy person who has lost out totally on a true freedom in this country.

They didn't lose a freedom. They lost a small portion of their earnings like every other taxpaying American.

By the way you whine for the wealthy, jd...i'd think your last name is Gates or Walton. At least Warren Buffet doesn't whine about paying taxes.


that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

That's funny. If I remember right, it wasn't the state giving money to the poor from the pockets of the wealthy.

But, it's usually been the case in a lot of instances in history...that most great countries/empires fell because off a small, ruling, wealthy class of people hoarded all the wealth while the masses of slaves/peasants/commoners/citizens fell victim to their whims and had little if anything...unless performing ilkish service such as a concubine, assassain, or spy to those who kept them down.

See...this is my view...

as wrong as it is to give someone something for nothing...

it's just as wrong for Americans to think it's their right to have anything they want just because they do a common thing for it.

You work and earn a check, so you have the right to do what you want?

No lack of humility there, is there?

Self-indulgence and entitlement comes in many forms, jd. Take off the rose-colored glasses now.

Collapse -

Yep,

by TonytheTiger In reply to oh really?

But, it's usually been the case in a lot of instances in history...that most great countries/empires fell because off a small, ruling, wealthy class of people hoarded all the wealth while the masses of slaves/peasants/commoners/citizens fell victim to their whims and had little if anything...unless performing ilkish service such as a concubine, assassain, or spy to those who kept them down.

And that's exactly what our government is trying to do... put more and more of the power (wealth) into fewer and fewer hands. The wealthy (over 3/4ths Democrats or Socialists, by the way) can take a hit on taxes, because they know they'll get it back penny for penny by including it in the cost of their business' goods and services. Meanwhile if you don't have anybody to pass the cost down to, you're screwed.

The poor always pay the taxes of the rich, so logically, the way to reduce the burden on the poor is to reduce the tax on the rich.

Collapse -

That is crazy talk, Tony

by jdclyde In reply to Yep,

Everyone knows when "The Government" decides to increase the minimum wage, that comes directly out of the pockets of the evil business owners, and serves them right!

They would NEVER increase the price of their goods/services to offset the increase in the cost of doing business, would they?

It is just one more "feel good" thing that people to stupid to understand "cause and effect" eat up like candy.

Punish success is always a great way to run things.

Reward failure is another winner.

"THEY can afford it". Who the **** is "they"?

Collapse -

Really?

by jck In reply to Yep,

Where did you get that logic from? Target? Dollar General?

If a stimulus plan puts $400 into the hands of individual Americans, how does that put "more and mroe of the power (wealth) into fewer and fewer hands"?

That made no sense.

BTW, that last paragraph:

The poor always pay the taxes of the rich, so logically, the way to reduce the burden on the poor is to reduce the tax on the rich.

That describes exactly what Bush's last "middle-class" taxcut did.

Go look at the numbers as to who really got the bigger credits/refunds this year.

Wasn't people making $30k-65k.

Collapse -

Costs of goods sold

by jdclyde In reply to Really?

A simple concept.

If you, as a liberal weenie, take money out of the pockets of the evil business owner via taxes, he is going to not just take a business loss. His cost of doing business goes up, so the price he charges the end consumer goes up accordingly.

The cost of living is raised, taking more away from "the poor" than they gained from the welfare check they got.

Kind of like the cost of smokes going up after the government sued and made their backroom deal. Get a huge payoff, causing the industry to raise the cost per pack, so the government can now double dip and get higher sales taxes.

Who won and who lost on that one?

Collapse -

Can anyone provide independent confirmation of this?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to Is this America or China?

Unnamed source, no legislation introduced by Waxman, no statements attributed to Waxman or Genachowski.

Back to Networks Forum
38 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums