DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: ReaPsTA on September 28, 2010, 09:17:25 AM
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-segal/stop-the-internet-blackli_b_739836.html
By David Segal and Aaron Swartz
When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.
The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.
One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.
But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.
Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)
COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship. Please help us fight back: The first step is signing our petition. We'll give you the tools to share it with your friends and call your Senator.
Focus: Will this bill pass? What are the implications of its introduction? How bad will the fallout be if it passes? What are the broader implications?
I had this thought in my head, and this is as good an example of it in action as anything.
The political parties are useless for many reasons, and legislation like this is a major example of why. Yes, the Republicans want to cut your taxes and regulate abortions more than the Democrats, but are they going to oppose legislation like this? I doubt it. We've already seen Obama trying to expand the ability of the government to spy on and kidnap Americans.
When it comes to issues that really impact our personal freedoms and the underlying factors that create prosperity in society, both parties equally don't care. Politicians don't like freedom and societal prosperity because they're not necessary for achieving it. Businesses don't like it because a free society means they might fail if the public doesn't like them (see automotive companies). Lawyers don't like it because if people don't have problems they don't get paid.
I guess this sorta comes back to the libertarianism vs. socialism argument that has existed on this board since its beginnings and will continue until its end. I find that giving power to governments inevitably creates circumstances that allow this legislation to happen. So why give them more power than absolutely necessary to hold society together?
-
If this passes I'm moving to Canada.
-
Censor what?
-
I have a really hard time seeing this happening. The American people put up with a lot of the Government's shit, but if this were to go into affect, I think a lot of people would be straight up furious. I know I would be pissed off as hell. The internet is the one of the last methods that the American people have for true free speech. If such a bill did manage to pass, I think it would be too difficult to keep track of the content they are trying to block. Look at music downloading, even with all the effort into stopping it, it still get easier to get around every year. Now imagine trying to apply that to all of the internet. Obviously too an extent it can be done, other countries are doing it, but I think there would be ways around it.
-
I have a really hard time seeing this happening. The American people put up with a lot of the Government's shit, but if this were to go into affect, I think a lot of people would be straight up furious. I know I would be pissed off as hell. The internet is the one of the last methods that the American people have for true free speech. If such a bill did manage to pass, I think it would be too difficult to keep track of the content they are trying to block. Look at music downloading, even with all the effort into stopping it, it still get easier to get around every year. Now imagine trying to apply that to all of the internet. Obviously too an extent it can be done, other countries are doing it, but I think there would be ways around it.
I would have believed this argument until the health care bill that just passed here. 57% of Americans favor repealing it, and as we can see from the news they're certainly vocal about it, but the politicians don't care. It's strange, because I have a hard time saying politicians even are trying to get re-elected anymore. The Democrats had to know that between the health care bill, the cap and trade bill, and the second stimulus, that the American people would flip out and wipe them out of Congress. So why was it in their best interests to push for these laws? Whatever that interest is, American public opinion is obviously not part of it.
-
Really, censor what?
If the content is illegal, I'd rather the government censor it than allow it to be viewed AND THAN PUNISH people for viewing it.
But I can see the danger with censoring stuff that's not illegal, obviously.
-
From the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online
This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet. Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site.
We note that the DMCA already gives copyright owners legal tools to remove infringing material piece-by-piece, and to obtain injunctions requiring ISPs to block certain offshore infringing websites. The misuse of the existing DMCA provisions have had a tremendously damaging impact on fair use and free expression. By comparison, COICA streamlines and vastly expands this; it would allow the AG to shoot down a whole domain including all the blog posts, images, backups, and files underneath it. In other words, it's not just possible but probable that a great deal of legitimate, protected speech will be taken down in the name of copyright enforcement.
It is designed to undermine basic Internet infrastructure. When a user enters "eff.org" into their web browser, what responds is a domain name system server that tells the users' browser where EFF's website is located on the Internet. This bill would have the Attorney General prevent the players in that domain name system (possibly including your ISP) from telling you the truth about a website's location.
And it's not clear what a user would see in this situation — would it look like a "404 message," that simply says a site or page could not be found, without explaining why? Would users receive some kind of notice clarifying that the site they were seeking was made inaccessible at the behest of the government? Generally speaking, the bill forces all the Internet "middlemen" to act as if a part of the Internet doesn't exist, even though that page may otherwise be completely available and accessible.
COICA sends the world the message that the United States approves of unilateral Internet censorship. Which governments deny their citizens access to parts of the Internet? For now, it is mostly totalitarian, profoundly anti-democratic regimes that keep their citizens from seeing the whole Internet. With this bill, the United States risks telling countries throughout the world, "Unilateral censorship of websites that the government doesn't like is okay — and this is how you do it."
The bill's imbalances threaten to complicate existing laws and policies. The bill includes poorly drafted definitions that threaten fair use online, endanger innovative backup services, and raises questions about how these new obligations on Internet intermediaries are intended to fit with existing US secondary liability rules and the DMCA copyright safe harbor regime. Moreover, it seems easy to get on the blacklist — the bill sets up a seemingly streamlined procedure for adding domains (including a McCarthy-like procedure of public snitching) — but in contrast, it seems difficult to get off the list, with a cumbersome process to have a blacklisted domain removed.
And what do we get in exchange? Not much, if the goal is to actually limit unauthorized copying online. The bill gives the government power to play an endless game of whack-a-mole, blocking one domain after another, but even a relatively unsophisticated technologist can begin to imagine the workarounds: a return to encrypted peer-to-peer, modified /etc/hosts files (that don't rely on the domain name system for finding things on the Internet), and other tools, which will emerge and ensure that committed pirates have a way to route around the bill's damage to the DNS system.
To us, COICA looks like another misguided gift to a shortsighted industry whose first instinct with respect to the Internet is to try to break it. There are still many questions to be answered, but one thing is for sure — this bill allows the government to suppress truthful speech and could block access to a wealth of non-infringing speech, and the end result will do little to protect artists or mollify the industries that profit from them. Stay tuned for more analysis, information, and steps you can take to fight Internet censorship.
I found the second point particularly interesting. I feel like most people have no actual idea of what the internet actually is or how it works (myself included to an extent), especially the legislators who try to regulate it.
-
Let me put it this way:
I'd rather the government censor child pornography sites, rather than let people view them and then arrest them for doing so. I'd rather the government block sites where music can be downloaded illegally, then let people do so be sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But I doubt if something like the above-mentioned passes there will be any kind of reason involved with it.
-
Really, censor what?
If the content is illegal, I'd rather the government censor it than allow it to be viewed AND THAN PUNISH people for viewing it.
But I can see the danger with censoring stuff that's not illegal, obviously.
Right. And you don't see how, in the real world, creating an internet censorship board will almost inevitably lead to censorship based on the whims of the government, special interest groups, and large corporations rather than an honest attempt to keep people from viewing snuff films or child pornography.
Not to mention that, as I've said over and over again, copyright laws are outdated and need to be rewritten. We've already seen the inevitability of people using file-sharing to get what they want. And I'd argue that since the physical data is on your hard drive, it's yours to do what you want with. A law such as this prevents our overall legal and economic system from evolving.
-
Really, censor what?
If the content is illegal, I'd rather the government censor it than allow it to be viewed AND THAN PUNISH people for viewing it.
But I can see the danger with censoring stuff that's not illegal, obviously.
Right. And you don't see how, in the real world, creating an internet censorship board will almost inevitably lead to censorship based on the whims of the government, special interest groups, and large corporations rather than an honest attempt to keep people from viewing snuff films or child pornography.
Just think. PETA gets youtube blocked for animal cruelty videos. I know its a lame example, but its an example of how something wouldn't have to be illegal to be considered being banned.
-
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
It's like this: if a armored car crashed in the middle of the road, and millions of dollars spilled out onto the street, what would you do if it was your job to protect the property? Would you wait until a crowd of looters swarmed around the car, and then try to arrest a handful of them in hopes that no other robbers will show up? Say you had the ability to get into the car and drive it away as quickly as possible? Sure, some people will have already gotten away with some cash, but wouldn't that be better?
Not sure if this is the same thing as what we're talking about, though.
-
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
I gotcha, but this bill isn't giving the authority to remove illegal content. That has already been in going on for years now. The point of this is that literally anything the government doesn't like, they have the right to remove, regardless how the American people feel about it.
-
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
I gotcha, but this bill isn't giving the authority to remove illegal content. That has already been in going on for years now.
They have?
You really can't tell :lol
If that's the case, I really wonder how effective this will be.
-
If this passes I'm moving to Canada.
Do you know anything about Canada? They're pretty much as messed up as we are in the legal system.
-
If this passes I'm moving to Canada.
Do you know anything about Canada? They're pretty much as messed up as we are in the legal system.
Weed is way more tolerated there though.
-
If this passes I'm moving to Canada.
Do you know anything about Canada? They're pretty much as messed up as we are in the legal system.
No, because I wasn't being serious with my initial post.
-
ACTA's falling apart, so the U.S. is pulling this out of their asses instead? And since it's not international, they don't have any other countries telling them how ridiculous it is -- their only opponent is the American public, who are too ignorant to care. Ugh. What the hell is happening?
-
If this passes I'm moving to Canada.
Do you know anything about Canada? They're pretty much as messed up as we are in the legal system.
Weed is way more tolerated there though.
I know, I lived there, so what?
-
ACTA's falling apart, so the U.S. is pulling this out of their asses instead? And since it's not international, they don't have any other countries telling them how ridiculous it is -- their only opponent is the American public, who are too ignorant to care. Ugh. What the hell is happening?
ACTA?
-
No surprise at all. Within weeks of taking office, Obama stacked the DoJ with lawyers from the entertainment industry. What fascinates me is that they seem to have the same mentality as the hawks in Bush's administration. Rarely can you actually solve a problem with brute force. The neo-cons convinced themselves that American military mite can solve the world's ills. Bullshit. These new assholes seem to think at enough censorship tools can salvage the train wrecks that are the music and movie industries.
Here's the interesting part. The more they try to tighten down the internet, the more they'll lose control of it. Even as we speak, pirates, hackers and child pornographers are doing whatever the hell they want in freenet. With anonymity taken care of, the only problem they're having is bandwidth. As Obama's stooges continue to try and close up the easier means of filesharing, more people will get into freenet, increasing the number of users and making the whole darknet run that much better. As I said in a different thread, there are far more ways of sharing information than anyone could ever think to shutdown. As it stands now, they're much better off trying to deal with copyright infringement while it's out in the open rather than forcing people into the truly dark corners.
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
Even if you think that any content on the internet could or should be illegal, which I don't, the government can't do anything about it without making the problem much worse.
-
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
Even if you think that any content on the internet could or should be illegal, which I don't, the government can't do anything about it without making the problem much worse.
You don't think child pornography should be illegal?
-
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
Even if you think that any content on the internet could or should be illegal, which I don't, the government can't do anything about it without making the problem much worse.
You don't think child pornography should be illegal?
No.
-
But its bad and encourages rape and murder and the absence of everything nice!
-
Yeah, I see your point.
But, honestly, the government should be doing a better job of removing illegal content from the internet.
Even if you think that any content on the internet could or should be illegal, which I don't, the government can't do anything about it without making the problem much worse.
You don't think child pornography should be illegal?
Technically, nothing should be illegal. Just heavily frowned upon by society if they choose.
-
No.
Eh. I don't like this. If you let more people watch child porn, you're creating incentives for kiddie porn directors to rape more kids in order to get material out there.
When it comes to virtual child porn, I don't really care. No kids are raped to make it. But real child porn? I don't see why legalizing it makes society better or prevents kids from being raped.
-
No.
Eh. I don't like this. If you let more people watch child porn, you're creating incentives for kiddie porn directors to rape more kids in order to get material out there.
When it comes to virtual child porn, I don't really care. No kids are raped to make it. But real child porn? I don't see why legalizing it makes society better or prevents kids from being raped.
I agree with ReaPsTA.
-
No.
Eh. I don't like this. If you let more people watch child porn, you're creating incentives for kiddie porn directors to rape more kids in order to get material out there.
When it comes to virtual child porn, I don't really care. No kids are raped to make it. But real child porn? I don't see why legalizing it makes society better or prevents kids from being raped.
I think his point is nothing should be illegal. Theft, child porn, rape, murder, should have no laws against them. That being said society as a whole would still disagree with those acts. If a man released a video of him having sex in with a 3 year old, and then slitting her throat, someone would definitely kill him with no laws against murder. I know thats a simple explanation, but am I going in the right direction?
-
Well, we're derailing the thread bigtime, but since it's Reap's thread anyway, I'll play.
Eh. I don't like this. If you let more people watch child porn, you're creating incentives for kiddie porn directors to rape more kids in order to get material out there.
If CP were decriminalized, would you run out to add videos of Preteens Gone Wild to your porn collection? We're talking about something that the overwhelming majority of folk find abhorrent. Decriminalizing it isn't going to change that. As for incentive, they're already making it, despite there being no legal market for it. Nobody decides to fuck their daughter because they're having trouble making the car payment.
When it comes to virtual child porn, I don't really care. No kids are raped to make it. But real child porn? I don't see why legalizing it makes society better or prevents kids from being raped.
I wouldn't say that legalizing it would be an improvement for society. I do however think that the prohibition is problematic for society. It really only fosters and endless string of bullshit, feelgood legislation; exactly the sort you would normally criticize. And, who's to say that a legal outlet for pervs to get their rocks off might not prevent a crime or two?
-
I think his point is nothing should be illegal. Theft, child porn, rape, murder, should have no laws against them. That being said society as a whole would still disagree with those acts. If a man released a video of him having sex in with a 3 year old, and then slitting her throat, someone would definitely kill him with no laws against murder. I know thats a simple explanation, but am I going in the right direction?
Do you really trust the people around you enough to not only be comfortable with them policing you you but to also decide what should be punishable and how severely? And if a murder or theft does happen, who's going to hold a trial or an investigation to figure out who was acting in self defense or who's lying?
-
I think his point is nothing should be illegal. Theft, child porn, rape, murder, should have no laws against them. That being said society as a whole would still disagree with those acts. If a man released a video of him having sex in with a 3 year old, and then slitting her throat, someone would definitely kill him with no laws against murder. I know thats a simple explanation, but am I going in the right direction?
Do you really trust the people around you enough to not only be comfortable with them policing you you but to also decide what should be punishable and how severely? ?
It's not like our government does the best job of it either. I not saying I completely trust everyone around me. I was simply stating what I thought barto was trying to say.
-
do not want
EDIT: Should you want to sign a petition against it here you go…
https://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?source=fb (https://demandprogress.org/blacklist/?source=fb)
-
The Dems/Libs always want CONTROL... so they can control what is "valid News" and what is the propoganda they want you to injest as the "so called truth"..
this is very scary..
-
The Dems/Libs always want CONTROL... so they can control what is "valid News" and what is the propoganda they want you to injest as the "so called truth"..
this is very scary..
Only the Dems and Libs want control? Hmmm....interesting.
-
The Dems/Libs always want CONTROL... so they can control what is "valid News" and what is the propoganda they want you to injest as the "so called truth"..
this is very scary..
Only the Dems and Libs want control? Hmmm....interesting.
prove otherwise?
-
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
-
The Dems/Libs always want CONTROL... so they can control what is "valid News" and what is the propoganda they want you to injest as the "so called truth"..
this is very scary..
Only the Dems and Libs want control? Hmmm....interesting.
prove otherwise?
wow...good one...got me there.
-
Holy shit! I think he actually believes it.
-
whats not to believe? history will show us its the Dem/libs that want to control liberty, info, healthcare, class warfare, by having the goverment injected to things they should not be, as they fear free info sharing.. just look at Obama freaking out over Fox news...
I didnt hear GWB complaining about MSNBC, CNN, BBC, CNBC, CBS, Dan Rather or Mapes..
look..I will only partake in these discussions if you all will keep it civil..period....
seems the attacking/mocking of my views here sorta proves my point on who is tolerant...right?
-
The Dems/Libs always want CONTROL... so they can control what is "valid News" and what is the propoganda they want you to injest as the "so called truth"..
this is very scary..
Only the Dems and Libs want control? Hmmm....interesting.
prove otherwise?
Errrrr ... it was Bush who created the Patriot Act, a major grab of governmental power and control.
I didnt hear GWB complaining about MSNBC, CNN, BBC, CNBC, CBS, Dan Rather or Mapes..
Wot? Bush was on a constant rant about the media, and how it was full of "activists".
rumborak
-
The Dems/Libs always want CONTROL... so they can control what is "valid News" and what is the propoganda they want you to injest as the "so called truth"..
this is very scary..
Only the Dems and Libs want control? Hmmm....interesting.
prove otherwise?
Errrrr ... it was Bush who created the Patriot Act.
rumborak
and what liberty did you lose under it?
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
(https://lh5.ggpht.com/_NtmFjO7_dRM/Sx5hAQ010iI/AAAAAAAAAHg/bEvEHdP40J8/You%27ve%20Got%20To%20Be%20Shitting%20Me.jpg)
-
can anyone show me where GWB "complained " about the media.. they were RUTHLESS on him..
I NEVER saw GWB say he wanted a station censored or would not meet with them...or call them " a non news station" like obama just did yesterday with Fox News..?? Obama just did this yesterday!!! His skin is so thin its opaque
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
(https://lh5.ggpht.com/_NtmFjO7_dRM/Sx5hAQ010iI/AAAAAAAAAHg/bEvEHdP40J8/You%27ve%20Got%20To%20Be%20Shitting%20Me.jpg)
again ...that response does not hold water..
-
and again..what is the issue with it?
The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied.
I guess you have no issue with anything, as long as it was issued by a Republican. When a Democrat does something, it must be evil, socialist, subversive, whatever.
rumborak
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
(https://lh5.ggpht.com/_NtmFjO7_dRM/Sx5hAQ010iI/AAAAAAAAAHg/bEvEHdP40J8/You%27ve%20Got%20To%20Be%20Shitting%20Me.jpg)
again ...that response does not hold water..
It holds more water than any argument you've made.
-
can anyone show me where GWB "complained " about the media.. they were RUTHLESS on him..
I NEVER saw GWB say he wanted a station censored or would not meet with them...or call them " a non news station" like obama just did yesterday with Fox News..?? Obama just did this yesterday!!!
Are you really defending FOX right now? You know, usually even the most die-hard Republicans on this forum shy away from associating themselves with it, since they too know it's a piece of shit.
rumborak
-
and again..what is the issue with it?
The Act dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied.
I guess you have no issue with anything, as long as it was issued by a Republican. When a Democrat does something, it must be evil, socialist, subversive, whatever.
rumborak
again.. what liberty did you lose? how did it effect you.. I can prove it helped defeat two attacks on our country..
-
can anyone show me where GWB "complained " about the media.. they were RUTHLESS on him..
I NEVER saw GWB say he wanted a station censored or would not meet with them...or call them " a non news station" like obama just did yesterday with Fox News..?? Obama just did this yesterday!!!
Are you really defending FOX right now? You know, usually even the most die-hard Republicans on this forum shy away from associating themselves with it, since they too know it's a piece of shit.
rumborak
sure.. what News do you watch? Maddow and Olberman ..LOL does another veiw scare you? and why does Fox rule in the ratings?
-
I just have to say it: EPICFAIL.
Dude, you're defending FOX by appealing to its ratings. Booya. That's like saying hamburgers are clearly the best food for you because so many people eat it.
rumborak
-
can anyone show me where GWB "complained " about the media.. they were RUTHLESS on him..
I NEVER saw GWB say he wanted a station censored or would not meet with them...or call them " a non news station" like obama just did yesterday with Fox News..?? Obama just did this yesterday!!!
Are you really defending FOX right now? You know, usually even the most die-hard Republicans on this forum shy away from associating themselves with it, since they too know it's a piece of shit.
rumborak
sure.. what News do you watch? Maddow and Olberman ..LOL does another veiw scare you? and why does Fox rule in the ratings?
(https://media.skateboard.com.au/forum/images/DERP2.jpg)
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Have you ever considered stand-up comedy? You'd be a hoot!
-
I just have to say it: EPICFAIL.
Dude, you're defending FOX by appealing to its ratings. Booya. That's like saying hamburgers are clearly the best food for you because so many people eat it.
rumborak
I have to say it again.. you are not making a salient point.. just going for the name calling.. why??
Is your point that the masses and MAJORITY of the USA is "too stoopid" to get the "highbrow slagging of halfwits like Maddow and Olberman? who do not deal in reality?
why do you think NBC and CNN just fired their Presiednts this week..the people have spoken
-
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views..
Even though I know you aren't, I now concluded that you're a troll.
rumborak
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Now, I don't live in America so I have no idea if Obama said Fox was a terrible news channel or not but the few times that I've been in America and watched Fox, I always thought "This is an awful news channel".
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Have you ever considered stand-up comedy? You'd be a hoot!
I leave the job for Obama
-
FEAR MONGERING TO BACK DOWN DISSENT
THUG IN CHIEF OBAMA: FOX NEWS IS “DESTRUCTIVE”
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 10:28 AM
President Obama attacked the most-watched cable news outlet in the nation today calling it “destructive.”
Unreal.
CBS reported:
In this month’s cover story for Rolling Stone magazine, President Obama weighs in on the cable network Fox News, saying that while he can’t object to the network carrying out its constitutional right to freedom of the press, he thinks it promotes a perspective that is “ultimately destructive for the long-term growth” of America.
“Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press,” Obama laughed, in response to a question from Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner about whether or not Fox News was “a good institution for America and for democracy.”
“We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints,” Mr. Obama said. “I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view.”
Mr. Obama, whose relationship with the cable network has in the past been rocky — former White House communications director Anita Dunn at one point called it “the communications arm of the Republican party” — made no concessions in regard to his dissatisfaction for the content of the network’s coverage.
Comments (103)
-
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views..
Even though I know you aren't, I now concluded that you're a troll.
rumborak
I came to that conclusion a long time ago, he's simply too good at this not to be one.
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Have you ever considered stand-up comedy? You'd be a hoot!
I leave the job for Obama
Yeah but he's still got a country to run. You don't have the same excuse ;)
-
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views..
Even though I know you aren't, I now concluded that you're a troll.
rumborak
no need to name call.. make your point with facts and I will do the same
-
https://gothamist.com/2008/07/02/was_fox_news_trying_to_make_ny_time.php
That's the level of journalism of FOX in general.
rumborak
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Now, I don't live in America so I have no idea if Obama said Fox was a terrible news channel or not but the few times that I've been in America and watched Fox, I always thought "This is an awful news channel".
Seriously, once someone left Fox on the TV at work, so I watched Glenn Beck for about 5 minute on my break and I felt like sticking my head in the microwave.
And...what the fuck, Epicview? Nothing he said in that article was unreasonable. He's saying that Fox has a clear right leaning bias. Just like MSNBC has a clear left leaning bias. I think you just have trouble detecting Fox's bias because you agree with them.
-
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views..
Even though I know you aren't, I now concluded that you're a troll.
rumborak
I came to that conclusion a long time ago, he's simply too good at this not to be one.
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Have you ever considered stand-up comedy? You'd be a hoot!
I leave the job for Obama
Yeah but he's still got a country to run. You don't have the same excuse ;)
Destroy = Run?
-
:lol
It's people like you that make me thankful I don't live in the US.
-
https://gothamist.com/2008/07/02/was_fox_news_trying_to_make_ny_time.php
That's the level of journalism of FOX in general.
rumborak
say huh? The NY Times is going out of business( thank god)... they are complete Yellow Journalism..cmon.. they dont even fake being objective..too funny
-
I think the best part is that you, EPICVIEW, just yesterday proclaimed to me via PM that you consider many of the views on this board as juvenile, and that your views are "vetted and formed".
Usually I don't disclose people's PMs, but your shitfest here just calls for it.
rumborak
-
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views..
Even though I know you aren't, I now concluded that you're a troll.
rumborak
I came to that conclusion a long time ago, he's simply too good at this not to be one.
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Have you ever considered stand-up comedy? You'd be a hoot!
I leave the job for Obama
Yeah but he's still got a country to run. You don't have the same excuse ;)
Destroy = Run?
If the republicans had their way, yes.
-
:lol
It's people like you that make me thankful I don't live in the US.
You better hope your country doesnt need the USA, becasue Obama dont think anything is worth fighting for ... so I pray your country will never need our boots on the ground
-
I think the best part is that you, EPICVIEW, just yesterday proclaimed to me via PM that you consider many of the views on this board as juvenile, and that your views are "vetted and formed".
Usually I don't disclose people's PMs, but your shitfest here just calls for it.
rumborak
I never said that..I said that I feel " I have a disconnect in poiltics with this group becasue I am older then what I percieve is a young group here"...
why cant you just stay on subject?? and debate the issues and news...?
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
Since it's been discussed many times here before, and you'll never allow yourself to see conflicting points of view anyway, I'll just give you a quick run down. Clinton was far more concerned about Al Qaeda than Dumbass every was until they kicked our ass and made him look bad. When Clinton acted, people screamed wag the dog because condemning him for enjoying a blowjob here and there was more important than national security. Bush had zero interest in al Qaeda because he has zero interest in anything. People were trying to tell him that we were fixing to be attacked left and right and he just didn't give a shit. I have plenty of issues with Clinton, but if we're going to compare presidential competence, you're taking the side of the biggest oafs to ever hold the office.
-
:lol
It's people like you that make me thankful I don't live in the US.
You better hope your country doesnt need the USA, becasue Obama dont think anything is worth fighting for ... so I pray your country will never need our boots on the ground
D'aaaaaaaaw, its so cute when he's cranky :3
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
Since it's been discussed many times here before, and you'll never allow yourself to see conflicting points of view anyway, I'll just give you a quick run down. Clinton was far more concerned about Al Qaeda than Dumbass every was until they kicked our ass and made him look bad. When Clinton acted, people screamed wag the dog because condemning him for enjoying a blowjob here and there was more important than national security. Bush had zero interest in al Qaeda because he has zero interest in anything. People were trying to tell him that we were fixing to be attacked left and right and he just didn't give a shit. I have plenty of issues with Clinton, but if we're going to compare presidential competence, you're taking the side of the biggest oafs to ever hold the office.
only history will be the judge..GWB was in office for 7 months when 9/11 happened
-
Here is my PM to Rum since he is misquoting it ...
Hi Rum,
may I ask your age? I think Im having a real disconnect with this group in the political threads, as most here are quite a bit younger then me..I am 46... and I find their "knowledge" quite a bit from academia, but not from living it in the private sector, I hope that I am wrong on that perception. I am also from the NY NJ area, and 9/11 changed my life , although I had been studying the jihad against the USA since the mid 90s. so my views are vetted and formed. Its a very nice group here and I dont want to argue with anyone hence why I play coy
have a great day
EV
-
see...I LIKE everyone and wanted to be nice as I am nice..
I have no idea why Rum felt he had to betray the privacy of a PM I sent him..I did not call any JUVENILE...
now lets enjoy the debate and please try to discuss the subject!!!
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
Since it's been discussed many times here before, and you'll never allow yourself to see conflicting points of view anyway, I'll just give you a quick run down. Clinton was far more concerned about Al Qaeda than Dumbass every was until they kicked our ass and made him look bad. When Clinton acted, people screamed wag the dog because condemning him for enjoying a blowjob here and there was more important than national security. Bush had zero interest in al Qaeda because he has zero interest in anything. People were trying to tell him that we were fixing to be attacked left and right and he just didn't give a shit. I have plenty of issues with Clinton, but if we're going to compare presidential competence, you're taking the side of the biggest oafs to ever hold the office.
only history will be the judge..GWB was in office for 7 months when 9/11 happened
And ignored countless memos and briefings during that time. What a great wartime president.
-
Here is my PM to Rum since he is misquoting it ...
Hi Rum,
may I ask your age? I think Im having a real disconnect with this group in the political threads, as most here are quite a bit younger then me..I am 46... and I find their "knowledge" quite a bit from academia, but not from living it in the private sector, I hope that I am wrong on that perception. I am also from the NY NJ area, and 9/11 changed my life , although I had been studying the jihad against the USA since the mid 90s. so my views are vetted and formed. Its a very nice group here and I dont want to argue with anyone hence why I play coy
have a great day
EV
pics or it never happened
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
we were not at war until GWB declared war and the rules of war time would be enacted..after 17 UN resolutions were violated.. and Benon Sevan and Kofi and El Barardie were going to try to block it
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
Since it's been discussed many times here before, and you'll never allow yourself to see conflicting points of view anyway, I'll just give you a quick run down. Clinton was far more concerned about Al Qaeda than Dumbass every was until they kicked our ass and made him look bad. When Clinton acted, people screamed wag the dog because condemning him for enjoying a blowjob here and there was more important than national security. Bush had zero interest in al Qaeda because he has zero interest in anything. People were trying to tell him that we were fixing to be attacked left and right and he just didn't give a shit. I have plenty of issues with Clinton, but if we're going to compare presidential competence, you're taking the side of the biggest oafs to ever hold the office.
only history will be the judge..GWB was in office for 7 months when 9/11 happened
And ignored countless memos and briefings during that time. What a great wartime president.
-
Here is my PM to Rum since he is misquoting it ...
Hi Rum,
may I ask your age? I think Im having a real disconnect with this group in the political threads, as most here are quite a bit younger then me..I am 46... and I find their "knowledge" quite a bit from academia, but not from living it in the private sector, I hope that I am wrong on that perception. I am also from the NY NJ area, and 9/11 changed my life , although I had been studying the jihad against the USA since the mid 90s. so my views are vetted and formed. Its a very nice group here and I dont want to argue with anyone hence why I play coy
have a great day
EV
pics or it never happened
LOL..say huh?
-
Here is my PM to Rum since he is misquoting it ...
Hi Rum,
may I ask your age? I think Im having a real disconnect with this group in the political threads, as most here are quite a bit younger then me..I am 46... and I find their "knowledge" quite a bit from academia, but not from living it in the private sector, I hope that I am wrong on that perception. I am also from the NY NJ area, and 9/11 changed my life , although I had been studying the jihad against the USA since the mid 90s. so my views are vetted and formed. Its a very nice group here and I dont want to argue with anyone hence why I play coy
have a great day
EV
pics or it never happened
LOL..say huh?
Last I checked, I didn't stutter.
-
Here is my PM to Rum since he is misquoting it ...
Hi Rum,
may I ask your age? I think Im having a real disconnect with this group in the political threads, as most here are quite a bit younger then me..I am 46... and I find their "knowledge" quite a bit from academia, but not from living it in the private sector, I hope that I am wrong on that perception. I am also from the NY NJ area, and 9/11 changed my life , although I had been studying the jihad against the USA since the mid 90s. so my views are vetted and formed. Its a very nice group here and I dont want to argue with anyone hence why I play coy
have a great day
EV
pics or it never happened
LOL..say huh?
Last I checked, I didn't stutter.
how do you take a pic of a PM? and trust me its lockbox true...ask Rum to show othewise
-
Here is my PM to Rum since he is misquoting it ...
Hi Rum,
may I ask your age? I think Im having a real disconnect with this group in the political threads, as most here are quite a bit younger then me..I am 46... and I find their "knowledge" quite a bit from academia, but not from living it in the private sector, I hope that I am wrong on that perception. I am also from the NY NJ area, and 9/11 changed my life , although I had been studying the jihad against the USA since the mid 90s. so my views are vetted and formed. Its a very nice group here and I dont want to argue with anyone hence why I play coy
have a great day
EV
pics or it never happened
LOL..say huh?
Last I checked, I didn't stutter.
how do you take a pic of a PM? and trust me its lockbox true...ask Rum to show othewise
1. Print Screen
2. Paste to Microsoft Paint
3. Save as image
4. Upload to photobucket
5. Post it here
6. ????
7. PROFIT!!!!
-
This is ridiculous. EPICVIEW, if you don't see a problem with the Patriot Act and think Bush didn't complain about the media, there's no point in continuing this "discussion".
rumborak
dont ya think that as the President that if he didnt protect us ( job #1 of the President) that he would have been crucified by not starting the HSA and the Patriot act? and again..what is the issue with it? not one American lost a liberty under it.. but it was useful in the stopping of two huge terrorist attacks after 9/11...
if ony Clinton did his job, maybe 9/11 would have been foiled after the first attack on the WTC. people died becasue Clinton ws a LOUSE
but Carnivore by Clinton was OK??
Since it's been discussed many times here before, and you'll never allow yourself to see conflicting points of view anyway, I'll just give you a quick run down. Clinton was far more concerned about Al Qaeda than Dumbass every was until they kicked our ass and made him look bad. When Clinton acted, people screamed wag the dog because condemning him for enjoying a blowjob here and there was more important than national security. Bush had zero interest in al Qaeda because he has zero interest in anything. People were trying to tell him that we were fixing to be attacked left and right and he just didn't give a shit. I have plenty of issues with Clinton, but if we're going to compare presidential competence, you're taking the side of the biggest oafs to ever hold the office.
only history will be the judge..GWB was in office for 7 months when 9/11 happened
And ignored countless memos and briefings during that time. What a great wartime president.
we were not at war until GWB declared war and the rules of war time would be enacted..after 17 UN resolutions were violated.. and Benon Sevan and Kofi and El Barardie were going to try to block it
But you just attacked Clinton for not doing enough to prevent it. Just so we're clear, Clinton acts and you say it isn't enough. Bush actively ignores threats and warnings, and you say that no state of war existed. Muslims kick our ass rather severely, and you say Bush is great because he declared war afterward. And you wonder why people have a hard time taking your vetted and formed points of view seriously.
And by the way, to say that the Bush administration utilized the rules of war opens up an entirely different can of laughable bullshit.
-
EB,
did I ever say I was not for Clinton doing more?.. especailly after WTC1 attack..
Lets nto forget Clinton had Osama..and passed on the opportunity...
if Clinton had statred a HSA the terrorists living here for years before 9/11 would have been caught..
how or why do you slag GWB for the breaking up of terror attacks post 9/11 with the HSA he created and proved it worked?... how do you justify Obama having multiple attacks happens since him being in offce and breaking up the HSA for VOTES and SOROS money
-
EB, please dont call Carnivore analgous to the Patriot act.. we both know the PA was to monitor transactiosn stirclty from foreign countries that harbor terrorists..
as the terrorists use all sorts of #s and you cant get a warrant for a number you wont know till its too late..and the PA worked..!!! it broke up terror attacks..
Carnivore was closer to Watergate...
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Now, I don't live in America so I have no idea if Obama said Fox was a terrible news channel or not but the few times that I've been in America and watched Fox, I always thought "This is an awful news channel".
Seriously, once someone left Fox on the TV at work, so I watched Glenn Beck for about 5 minute on my break and I felt like sticking my head in the microwave.
And...what the fuck, Epicview? Nothing he said in that article was unreasonable. He's saying that Fox has a clear right leaning bias. Just like MSNBC has a clear left leaning bias. I think you just have trouble detecting Fox's bias because you agree with them.
obective studies have been done on all the networks.. sighting Fox the most fair ,....period
-
EB, please dont call Carnivore analgous to the Patriot act.. we both know the PA was to monitor transactiosn stirclty from foreign countries that harbor terrorists..
as the terrorists use all sorts of #s and you cant get a warrant for a number you wont know till its too late..and the PA worked..!!! it broke up terror attacks..
Carnivore was closer to Watergate...
Do you not even realize your ridiculous bias in this? Is it so incomprehensible to you that we see PA equally if not worse to Carnivore? No, we don't just believe Bush when he claims "the PA was to monitor transactiosn stirclty from foreign countries that harbor terrorists".
The disturbing part here really is that you swallowed the PA wholesale and just said "yes, mam" when it was introduced, but throw a tantrum on Carnivore.
Honestly, iff there's a single notion you should take away from this whole discussion, it's that you do NOT have a balanced view of these things. You absorb 100% what FOX, Bush and Republicans say and defend it almost brainlessly, and jump on anything Democrat.
rumborak
-
First off, just because his lackeys say that the PATRIOT Act prevented terrorist acts doesn't necessarily make it so. Preventing some stoners from blowing up buildings when they couldn't even buy shoes and a camera without help from their FBI mole doesn't really sound like a ringing endorsement of their new-found powers.
But the more important concern is that they had all the tools they needed to prevent the first one. All that was required was for some people to care enough to do something about it. There were red flags all over the place, and they were obtained within the confines of the Constitution. Rather than manning up and saying that he was asleep at the switch, he said that we needed new laws to prevent it. New laws that, though you can't admit it, circumvent the Bill of Rights at every turn. You are not as free now as you were, and just because you're [presumably] not a criminal doesn't change that fact. We all got fucked on the deal, and it was never necessary to begin with. That's the sort of thing that happens when you have half-witted nimrods running the show.
Edit: Actually, if you look back a couple of pages, I already addressed Carnivore. I haven't related it to this whole War On Terror bullshit in any way.
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Now, I don't live in America so I have no idea if Obama said Fox was a terrible news channel or not but the few times that I've been in America and watched Fox, I always thought "This is an awful news channel".
Seriously, once someone left Fox on the TV at work, so I watched Glenn Beck for about 5 minute on my break and I felt like sticking my head in the microwave.
And...what the fuck, Epicview? Nothing he said in that article was unreasonable. He's saying that Fox has a clear right leaning bias. Just like MSNBC has a clear left leaning bias. I think you just have trouble detecting Fox's bias because you agree with them.
obective studies have been on all the networks.. calling Fox the most fair ,....period
Source please.
-
Im sighting the Brooklyn Bridge terror plot and the Plane plot out of Europe...^
and it worked.. I go by FACTS.. we were not attacked for 8 years ..UNTIL OBAMA started to dismantle it.. again..strictly the facts..
-
Im sighting the Brooklyn Bridge terror plot and the Plane plot out of Europe...^
and it worked.. I go by FACTS.. we were not attacked for 8 years ..UNTIL OBAMA started to dismantle it.. again..strictly the facts..
Hearsay doesn't count as facts, bro
-
Im sighting the Brooklyn Bridge terror plot and the Plane plot out of Europe...^
and it worked.. I go by FACTS.. we were not attacked for 8 years ..UNTIL OBAMA started to dismantle it.. again..strictly the facts..
And since then we've been attacked constantly? Are those your "facts"?
You're deluding yourself on your "vetted views", epic.
rumborak
-
so if Chairman Obama says 'Fox no good" we should just bow to his wishes...
sorry...that BS aint for me.. I form my views..I research the merit of what is valid..
Fox reports News and does it quite well.... any objective ratring of Fox shows they are FAIR with time for opposing views.. even though many times the Dem will not go on to debate their views for fear of getting exposed..as its COOL to just slag FOX and have it as the Boogieman...
Now, I don't live in America so I have no idea if Obama said Fox was a terrible news channel or not but the few times that I've been in America and watched Fox, I always thought "This is an awful news channel".
Seriously, once someone left Fox on the TV at work, so I watched Glenn Beck for about 5 minute on my break and I felt like sticking my head in the microwave.
And...what the fuck, Epicview? Nothing he said in that article was unreasonable. He's saying that Fox has a clear right leaning bias. Just like MSNBC has a clear left leaning bias. I think you just have trouble detecting Fox's bias because you agree with them.
https://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
obective studies have been on all the networks.. calling Fox the most fair ,....period
Source please.
https://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
-
The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.
-
The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.
While I don't particularly trust wikipedia, I did take a look at the source behind that.
https://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2515
-
Seriously, epic, defending FOX as a balanced news stations is a sinking ship. Abandon it, most intelligent conservatives have done so a long time ago.
rumborak
-
1. June 1, 2009 - Little Rock, Arkansas - Muslim terrorist Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.
2. Nov 5th, 2009 - Muslim terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood, Texas - killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.
3. Dec 25th, 2009 - Muslim terrorist Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to detonate an explosive on an aircraft enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, the suspect ignites himself on fire until he is extinguished and overpowered by two passengers.
4. May 1st, 2010 - New York City, New York, United States New York's Times Square was evacuated after the discovery of a car bomb. Suspect Shahzad Faisal is in custody.
And remember the planning for the 9/11 terrorist attacks occured DURING THE CLINTON (had Osama in his gunsights and was too cowardly to pull the trigger) ADMINISTRATION!
If the 9/11 attacks had happened during Lord God Obama's reign the "suspects" would be caught and hauled into CIVIL court in New York City for a quaint little trial and a slap on the hand.
-
Seriously, epic, defending FOX as a balanced news stations is a sinking ship. Abandon it, most intelligent conservatives have done so a long time ago.
rumborak
not a chance... zero...thats like saying " this burger tastes sorta off, so I will drink poison instead"..
what may I ask should I watch? LOL
and trust I watch it for news.. my views are formed by a myriad of sourcing
Im dissapointed in your sharing of my PM..that sorta tells me you will hit below the belt and cant take the heat..
-
Lol
-
Lol
Its funny how this entire thread can be summed by one simple acronym.
-
1. June 1, 2009 - Little Rock, Arkansas - Muslim terrorist Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.
2. Nov 5th, 2009 - Muslim terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood, Texas - killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.
3. Dec 25th, 2009 - Muslim terrorist Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to detonate an explosive on an aircraft enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, the suspect ignites himself on fire until he is extinguished and overpowered by two passengers.
4. May 1st, 2010 - New York City, New York, United States New York's Times Square was evacuated after the discovery of a car bomb. Suspect Shahzad Faisal is in custody.
And remember the planning for the 9/11 terrorist attacks occured DURING THE CLINTON (had Osama in his gunsights and was too cowardly to pull the trigger) ADMINISTRATION!
If the 9/11 attacks had happened during Lord God Obama's reign the "suspects" would be caught and hauled into CIVIL court in New York City for a quaint little trial and a slap on the hand.
For fuck's sake. I thought you were pretty misguided at first. If you're really are citing two shootings and two failed bombings as evidence of terrorists attacking us because of Obama, then I'm gonna stop wasting my time with you. You're beyond hope.
-
1. June 1, 2009 - Little Rock, Arkansas - Muslim terrorist Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, opened fire on a U.S. military recruiting office. Private William Long was killed and Private Quinton Ezeagwula was wounded.
2. Nov 5th, 2009 - Muslim terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan - Fort Hood, Texas - killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.
3. Dec 25th, 2009 - Muslim terrorist Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempts to detonate an explosive on an aircraft enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit. During the incident, the suspect ignites himself on fire until he is extinguished and overpowered by two passengers.
4. May 1st, 2010 - New York City, New York, United States New York's Times Square was evacuated after the discovery of a car bomb. Suspect Shahzad Faisal is in custody.
And remember the planning for the 9/11 terrorist attacks occured DURING THE CLINTON (had Osama in his gunsights and was too cowardly to pull the trigger) ADMINISTRATION!
If the 9/11 attacks had happened during Lord God Obama's reign the "suspects" would be caught and hauled into CIVIL court in New York City for a quaint little trial and a slap on the hand.
For fuck's sake. I thought you were pretty misguided at first. If you're really are citing two shootings and two failed bombings as evidence of terrorists attacking us because of Obama, then I'm gonna stop wasting my time with you. You're beyond hope.
is there a certain number of casulities needed?
-
Im sighting the Brooklyn Bridge terror plot and the Plane plot out of Europe...^
and it worked.. I go by FACTS.. we were not attacked for 8 years ..UNTIL OBAMA started to dismantle it.. again..strictly the facts..
Hearsay doesn't count as facts, bro
I know..thats why I keep it real. ..um...bro..
-
EB,
so lets just dismantle the Partiot act.. F it.. we have Obama.. he need left wing votes..so lets just stop trying to stop terror attacks.. especially the "small ones"...
PS: My family was in Time Square the night that terrorist couldnt detonate that car bomb.. but to you thats irrelevent if only say 40 people got killed...right?
Im using your deduction...
-
let me be clearer... Terrorist are obviously emboldened they are going to be safe and not to be killed under Holder and Obama within the USA they are to be given rights!..and evidence is to be scrutinized and miranda'ed
I dont see how that makes us safer..
very simple point..
BUT Obama wants to censor us!!!!...
-
Not every act of violence by a Muslim is terrorism. Body count is irrelevant. A terrorist attack can kill 0, and a Muslim attack that kills 400 might not be terrorism.
-
What if a Muslim just really hated his job and decided to shoot up the place and then kill himself? How quickly do you think Fox news would be screaming terrorism? If a white guy did it, would they say the same thing? Hell no.
-
Not every act of violence by a Muslim is terrorism. Body count is irrelevant. A terrorist attack can kill 0, and a Muslim attack that kills 400 might not be terrorism.
agreed.. but the ones sited are terrorist attacks by your own rules..
and do you really doubt Im not 100% facile on what is and isnt a terrorist attack?
-
What if a Muslim just really hated his job and decided to shoot up the place and then kill himself? How quickly do you think Fox news would be screaming terrorism? If a white guy did it, would they say the same thing? Hell no.
sorry, but again Fox would be as valid as any network...the real issue is why the other networks will not report the reality of the TRUTH if it is..
-
Not every act of violence by a Muslim is terrorism. Body count is irrelevant. A terrorist attack can kill 0, and a Muslim attack that kills 400 might not be terrorism.
agreed.. but the onces sited are terrorist attacks by your own rules
I haven't quoted my own rules yet. But funny you bring it up, because here they are.
Muslim group wants government to call plane attack terrorism (https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/82387-muslim-group-wants-government-to-call-austin-plane-attack-terrorism?sms_ss=digg)
This is something that's been bugging me for a while, and since this article was posted in a different thread, I'll bring it up now.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is both absolutely correct and absolutely wrong. Had a Muslim carried out the attack, I have no doubt it would have been immediately described as terrorism. Yet, I don't think it qualifies as such regardless of the actors ethnicity. Somehow the definition of terrorism has become nothing more than killing civilians for political motives, and since not every act of political violence can be terroristic, arbitrary qualifiers like ethnicity and body count have become important. It seems that nobody is capable of differentiating between a lone act of violence and an orchestrated scheme to scare the shit out of a society. Not every mass murder is an act of terrorism.
The Army Major who snapped at Ft. Hood is a fine example. Did his attack really leave anybody scared after it was over? Did he have an actual agenda other than killing people? He was pissed off and killing people was his only motivation. In an act of terrorism, killing is one means to an end. It's not and end itself. Had he left a note saying that he was only the first of many unless America ended the war, then it would certainly qualify--even if there actually were no others.
Which leads to something that I now feel I've been totally off base on. Why does the Oklahoma city bombing qualify as terror? I don't see how McVeigh and Nichols were really trying to accomplish any sort of agenda. They wanted to kill a bunch of federal employees. They had no position to promote. They had no longer term plan. They were just fucking angry. There's no evidence that they had any other schemes in the works. Furthermore, when busted, they never opted to even explain what they were pissed off about. There's an adage that says criminals take responsibility for their actions while terrorists claim the credit. How is it terrorism if you don't even want people to know why you acted? They're mass murders, no different than George Henard, James Oliver Huberty or Charles Whitman except in the level of their success. I'm pretty sure any one of those three would have loved to kill 168 people.
It seems to me that terrorism has become just a label thrown about for two reasons. First, for people other than the actual bad guys to scare the hell out of everybody. Fox and CNN cause more terror than any actual act of violence. Second, it makes people feel better after they've been clobbered. I think people would rather feel that the victims were good, righteous people murdered by evil bastards for reasons completely beyond their control. In the mean time, a very real and horrible thing gets watered down. There are people in the world who can't live normal lives out of fear that some asshole will blow up the pizza parlor they eat at; a fear they've had to endure for years. Somehow I really don't think their situation is comparable to the occasional, random act of mass murder.
-
PS: sorry but you are 100% wrong on Fort Hood.. he was a terrorist in a terrorist network..period.
you may want to retract your post..its flawed and WRONG...
-
Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda
Army Major in Fort Hood Massacre Used 'Electronic Means' to Connect with Terrorists
602 comments By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MATTHEW COLE and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 9, 2009
PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooU.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with an individual associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
Army knew suspected Fort Hood gunman had contact with al Qaeda recruiter.According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.
In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).
Hoekstra said he is "absolutely furious" that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan's attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.
"This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies—not the CIA—have the lead," CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. " Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect."
Related
WATCH: Fort Hood Suspect's Ties to Terrorists'Cop Killer' Gun Used In Ft. Hood Shooting, Officials SaidWATCH: What Turned Major Into Alleged Killer?Investigators want to know if Hasan maintained contact with a radical mosque leader from Virginia, Anwar al Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen and runs a web site that promotes jihad around the world against the U.S.
In a blog posting early Monday titled "Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing," Awlaki calls Hasan a "hero" and a "man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
According to his site, Awlaki served as an imam in Denver, San Diego and Falls Church, Virginia.
The Associated Press reported Sunday that Major Hasan attended the Falls Church mosque when Awlaki was there.
EmailsSign Up For Blotter Alerts!
E-mail address:
More Newsletters »
Subscribe RSS Feeds Podcasts Mobile
The Telegraph of London reported that Awlaki had made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers when he was in San Diego.
He denied any knowledge of the hijacking plot and was never charged with any crime. After an intensive investigation by the FBI , Awlaki moved to Yemen.
People who knew or worked with Hasan say he seemed to have gradually become more radical in his disapproval of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Sunday, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) called for an investigation into whether the Army missed signs as to whether Hasan was an Islamic extremist.
"If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday
-
The Telegraph is certainly a good source of information.
-
Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists
Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.
By Philip Sherwell and Alex Spillius
Published: 8:17PM GMT 07 Nov 2009
Previous1 of 2 ImagesNext
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas Photo: GETTY The radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of supporting attacks on British troops
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.
The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.
Related Articles
Inside story of how massacre on military base happened
Policewoman awoke from surgery and asked if anybody died
Fort Hood gunman used 'cop killer' weapon
Fort Hood shooter is deeply sensitive introvert, say Palestinian relatives
Fort Hood shooting: President Barack Obama will travel to Texas for Fort Hood memorial service
Chinese authorities ban Uighurs from mosquesHasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.
As investigators look at Hasan's motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.
( This is from the UK Telegraph)
-
FOX, Telegraph ... next stop, Andy thread!
rumborak
-
can we please get back on subject of how Obama is trying to cotrol the net and Net Nuetrality laws he wants to impose?
-
You're picking and choosing facts to support a spurious claim. He did contact the radical Cleric. It was investigated and deemed to be in line with his research in to psychiatry and Islam. [I believe the cleric in question had written books about dream interpretation in Islam] Regardless, his motivation was just to kill as many people as possible.
-
You're picking and choosing facts to support a spurious claim. He did contact the radical Cleric. It was investigated and deemed to be in line with his research in to psychiatry and Islam. [I believe the cleric in question had written books about dream interpretation in Islam] Regardless, his motivation was just to kill as many people as possible.
Your circuitous argument is losing its way... you sound like an apologist for him sadly ( I know you are not), but you want to put everything in some sort of neat box that you want it in....
this is it : He was a terrorist.. he excuted his plan of Jihad.. thats all ...period. Obama cant get this either so you are in good company!!! LOL
-
:rollin at this thread
-
You're picking and choosing facts to support a spurious claim. He did contact the radical Cleric. It was investigated and deemed to be in line with his research in to psychiatry and Islam. [I believe the cleric in question had written books about dream interpretation in Islam] Regardless, his motivation was just to kill as many people as possible.
Your circuitous argument is losing its way... you sound like an apologist for him sadly ( I know you are not), but you want to put everything in some sort of neat boxing that you want....
this is it : He was a terrorist.. he excuted his plan of Jihad.. thats all ...period. Obama cant get this either so you are in good company!!! LOL
LMAO
-
:rollin at this thread
I know! But I'm having fun with the troll myself ;)
They're so cute when they are cranky and upset :-*
-
:rollin at this thread
I know! But I'm having fun with the troll myself ;)
They're so cute when they are cranky and upset :-*
I know...they really are cute!!!! what shall we do with them???
-
I honestly don't know WTF that was supposed to mean. However:
and do you really doubt Im not 100% facile on what is and isnt a terrorist attack?
and
this is it : He was a terrorist.. he excuted his plan of Jihad.. thats all ...period.
There's nothing I can say that'll top that. You win.
-
I honestly don't know WTF that was supposed to mean. However:
and do you really doubt Im not 100% facile on what is and isnt a terrorist attack?
and
this is it : He was a terrorist.. he excuted his plan of Jihad.. thats all ...period.
There's nothing I can say that'll top that. You win.
Id settle for a tie lol...I dont want to win..I want people to THINK!!!
-
:rollin at this thread
I know! But I'm having fun with the troll myself ;)
They're so cute when they are cranky and upset :-*
I know...they really are cute!!!! what shall we do with them???
Edit: nevermind
-
EB,
I will talk in PM anytime to clarify..I enjoy the banter.. and to me I have been clear, concise and consistent ..what you quote of mine above is accurate..." I know what constitutes terrorsim and the Fort Hood shooter is obviously part of the Jihad against our country and he is part of a politcal movement against us, hence he is a terrorist by definition"
-
I have a really hard time seeing this happening. The American people put up with a lot of the Government's shit, but if this were to go into affect, I think a lot of people would be straight up furious. I know I would be pissed off as hell. The internet is the one of the last methods that the American people have for true free speech. If such a bill did manage to pass, I think it would be too difficult to keep track of the content they are trying to block. Look at music downloading, even with all the effort into stopping it, it still get easier to get around every year. Now imagine trying to apply that to all of the internet. Obviously too an extent it can be done, other countries are doing it, but I think there would be ways around it.
I would have believed this argument until the health care bill that just passed here. 57% of Americans favor repealing it, and as we can see from the news they're certainly vocal about it, but the politicians don't care. It's strange, because I have a hard time saying politicians even are trying to get re-elected anymore. The Democrats had to know that between the health care bill, the cap and trade bill, and the second stimulus, that the American people would flip out and wipe them out of Congress. So why was it in their best interests to push for these laws? Whatever that interest is, American public opinion is obviously not part of it.
Well said Reapsta! right on
-
I haven't put that much thought into it, but it seems to me that Jihad and terrorism are two completely different concepts. You seem to be equating the two. Furthermore, if memory serves correctly, Hasan's motivations weren't political, though there was a religious element. He didn't want to serve in an area where he'd have to fight Muslims and he snapped. While he might (or might not) have been sympathetic towards jihadists, that doesn't mean he acted on their behalf, and again, it wouldn't make him a terrorist anyway.
A lone gunman killing a bunch of people with no other plan whatsoever, and with no political goals to promote, is not a terrorist. Hasan's actions seem to be more sociopathic than anything else. He wanted out and he wanted to take the people who cornered him out with him.
-
EB,
I agree with how the two can become merged or confused.. but under any test of terrorism, Fort Hood was one..
we were told he didnt want to go, but thats for debate, we are not sure of the veracity of that ..he wass not going to be in combat that was for sure..so the fake complaint peddled by the lib media that he would have to fight is again wrong..he did not snap. he executed his Jihad on the infidels.. aka a terrorist shooting of civilians..not an enemy in uniform..
we are sure now that he had contact with Terrorists and had been with them.. screamed "allah Akbar" during his shooting.. and had SOI on his business card.. all the elements of terrorsim is found.
-
At first glance, I see about 7 different non-sequiturs in that post. However, I gotta get to work. Maybe, if this thread is still going on, I'll dissect it later.
-
EB,
I agree with how the two can become merged or confused.. but under any test of terrorism, Fort Hood was one..
we were told he didnt want to go, but thats for debate, we are not sure of the veracity of that ..he wass not going to be in combat that was for sure..so the fake complaint peddled by the lib media that he would have to fight is again wrong..he did not snap. he executed his Jihad on the infidels.. aka a terrorist shooting of civilians..not an enemy in uniform..
we are sure now that he had contact with Terrorists and had been with them.. screamed "allah Akbar" during his shooting.. and had SOI on his business card.. all the elements of terrorsim is found.
What if a christian, or athiest white guy went to a mall and started shooting tons of people. Would he be a terrorist?
-
At first glance, I see about 7 different non-sequiturs in that post. However, I gotta get to work. Maybe, if this thread is still going on, I'll dissect it later.
cool...have a great day EB...thanks for the banter.. I enjoy these type of debates and subjects..
-
^ to Adami two posts up... it could be terrorism, we would have to know a lot more about the shooter, motives, ideology and if he is involved in supremecy of one group to be subjugated by another...and if the shooting was to hold a group of people under the threat of more terrorism.. if he is a radical part of a radical political movement of domination at all cost, is it in their by laws, is it taught in the schools ( madrasses) etc, is thre brain washing involved of the their children.. are they tolerant of others to live in peace..
-
Why? To see if he were muslim? There were plenty of school shootings and so forth under bushs' watch. Those don't count as terrorism to you. Yet when the person happens to be muslim, then it's not only terrorism, but it's linked to the major terrorist organizations.
-
Why? To see if he were muslim? There were plenty of school shootings and so forth under bushs' watch. Those don't count as terrorism to you. Yet when the person happens to be muslim, then it's not only terrorism, but it's linked to the major terrorist organizations.
point to the case and I will be tell you my thoughts.. post the case please
-
To Adami if it was a crazy KKLan member id say YES... its a form of terrorism as they are hate mongers who are radical and indoctrinate hate into their children... if they went violent and started a series of shootings to hold the african americans in a state of fear, Id say YES....thats Terrorism and they should be destroyed ( which I hate the Klan ( obviously)..so Id be fine with them being wiped out of our society)
-
What if a muslim, a devout muslim, lost his mind because his wife left him and shot tons of people. Is that terrorism? Even if yelled Alahu Akbar?
-
It seems terrorism is decided the Judge Stewart kind of way. "I know it when I see it!". Which is short for "I will label it the way it is the most convenient to my views".
rumborak
-
What if a muslim, a devout muslim, lost his mind because his wife left him and shot tons of people. Is that terrorism? Even if yelled Alahu Akbar?
NO.. Id say thats NOT terrorism at first galnce.. but would still strike fear as a terrorist act because of the inference..again the aftermath of his connection or lack there of would be variable needed to be explored.. and where does the incident occur ,, Saudi Arabia or in NYC?
this is a tough one.. I could argue that his losing face within his Muslim society and the blaming of infidels currupting his wife to leave could be involved and that element could lean towards terroristic outrage,,etc
I thought for a second you were talking about Honor Killings.. because if he was devout there would be a possibiltiy of that... sadly
-
EPICVIEW:
Great troll or greatest troll?
-
EPICVIEW:
Great troll or greatest troll?
I dont get it? what am I doing that you would say that? Im enjoying the subject..granted we are off topic and I have tried to get it back on subject a few times...
-
EPICVIEW:
Great troll or greatest troll?
I dont get it? what am I doing that you would say that? Im enjoying the subject..granted we are off topic and I have tried to get it back on subject a few times...
Actually this is true, I did see at least once that you tried to bring us back to the original topic. Kudos.
-
EPICVIEW:
Great troll or greatest troll?
I dont get it? what am I doing that you would say that? Im enjoying the subject..granted we are off topic and I have tried to get it back on subject a few times...
Actually this is true, I did see at least once that you tried to bring us back to the original topic. Kudos.
thank you Adami
-
Back to the original topic. Limiting the internet in any way is just a bad idea. It's damn near impossible to be precise and accurate, the only actions have to be broad and large, which will end up doing more harm than good. I know you guys think the idea of someone being able to download a picture of a naked child is worse than murdering someone, but I'd rather have those people get away with it than everyone to lose the freedom they enjoy.
-
I agree that the net shoudl NOT be censored by the Goverment...and Honestly, Obama has shown some bad tendencies with the Fairness Doctrine and the Net Neutrality issue they feel "they should control"
and hence control the "message"... very scary when looked at with objectivity
-
EPICVIEW:
Great troll or greatest troll?
I think neither. Perhaps.....
EPICTROLL
:neverusethis:
-
Come on.
-
Come on.
Was that directed at me?
-
Come on.
Was that directed at me?
Yes.
-
To be fair, while I find Epicview's views to fall somewhere between misguided and fucking delusional, he's been far more civil and respectful to others than what he's received; and I include myself in that. People who flippantly write him off as a troll aren't looking real good either, at this point.
-
To be fair, while I find Epicview's views to fall somewhere between misguided and fucking delusional, he's been far more civil and respectful to others than what he's received; and I include myself in that. People who flippantly write him off as a troll aren't looking real good either, at this point.
Except he hasn't.
-
Reading back it seems like he took the the first insults and simply went along with it. I disagree with the guy and think hes a little weird, but barto is right when he says that he has been civil.
-
To be fair, while I find Epicview's views to fall somewhere between misguided and fucking delusional, he's been far more civil and respectful to others than what he's received; and I include myself in that. People who flippantly write him off as a troll aren't looking real good either, at this point.
Thank You EB... Im always civil as I have no problem discussing the subjects, I am not a troll ( lol..Im not sure what is but I assume its not a good thing,,,, wait if troll means a " a person who makes typos." then maybe I am one..lol)
next we gotta figure out why my views are not being embraced.. :tup :P
I have a thick skin...its all good..I know you all are friends and there is no reason to stress..I like to have fun...
-
Did not read the whole thread.
However, before Obama, GWB was the most liberal president EVER in terms of spending and government control.
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
lol, a little late but good for you bud.
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
lol, a little late but good for you bud.
Yes, I suppose I am a bit late.
As far as the OP goes, if I'm opposed to obscenity laws, I'm definitely opposed to this. Who then gets to decide what sites are okay for viewing? Take my school as an extreme example: There are perfectly educational sites we CAN NOT go on because of what the board decides is appropriate. We could be searching for the gestation period of hippopotamuses and it will come up as "WARNING: SEX. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR DERP"
My point is, it can get out of hand. While at first maybe they block sites that are definitely illegal, then they block things that are borderline... next thing you know we can't go on Facebook, Youtube, or even DTF.
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
Saying these kinds of things doesn't make the mods want you to become one of them, you know :lol
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
lol, a little late but good for you bud.
Yes, I suppose I am a bit late.
As far as the OP goes, if I'm opposed to obscenity laws, I'm definitely opposed to this. Who then gets to decide what sites are okay for viewing? Take my school as an extreme example: There are perfectly educational sites we CAN NOT go on because of what the board decides is appropriate. We could be searching for the gestation period of hippopotamuses and it will come up as "WARNING: SEX. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR DERP"
My point is, it can get out of hand. While at first maybe they block sites that are definitely illegal, then they block things that are borderline... next thing you know we can't go on Facebook, Youtube, or even DTF.
I used not be able to access www.imageshack.us for pornography reasons...
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
I'm taking it you've never argued with a troll before? Because its all the same signs. Someone comes in and derails the thread and then responds to everything with insane, bullshit logic that makes no sense at all. I'm sorry, I've seen too many goddamn trolls in my life to know when I see one, and I see a troll here.
Report me if you like Icy, doesn't change the fact that every response he's made is one I'd expect out of a pro-conservative troll.
Oh yeah, and I think he's a troll. u mad?
-
Knock it off.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlehkm94ato?from=Main.PoesLaw
-
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
I'm taking it you've never argued with a troll before? Because its all the same signs. Someone comes in and derails the thread and then responds to everything with insane, bullshit logic that makes no sense at all. I'm sorry, I've seen too many goddamn trolls in my life to know when I see one, and I see a troll here.
Report me if you like Icy, doesn't change the fact that every response he's made is one I'd expect out of a pro-conservative troll.
Oh yeah, and I think he's a troll. u mad?
again, what is your issue with me? Im not following your logic, Im just a good guy who has views about my country and I was on subject ..until I was made to have to defend myself. All I can see is that you dont like my views, and somehow that offends you?
-
Knock it off.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlehkm94ato?from=Main.PoesLaw
I'm reporting the next person who calls EPICVIEW a troll. So far he hasn't said anything in this thread that deems him troll-worthy. It seems to me he is strong in his beliefs and because some people disagree with him they want to call him a troll... Knock it off.
I'm taking it you've never argued with a troll before? Because its all the same signs. Someone comes in and derails the thread and then responds to everything with insane, bullshit logic that makes no sense at all. I'm sorry, I've seen too many goddamn trolls in my life to know when I see one, and I see a troll here.
Report me if you like Icy, doesn't change the fact that every response he's made is one I'd expect out of a pro-conservative troll.
Oh yeah, and I think he's a troll. u mad?
again, what is your issue with me? Im not following your logic, Im just a good guy who has views about my country and I was on subject ..until I was made to have to defend myself. All I can see is that you dont like my views, and somehow that offends you?
Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.
-
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
-
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry baout where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "fredom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
And arguments like this are why I think you are a troll. I'm not bashing you for having conservative views. I'm bashing you because your points are all insane bullshit that makes no sense at all and then go defend Fox news as a legitimate news source (Despite the source you showed apparently was funded by pro-conservative groups....).
I have friends who are conservatives, I have no problems with them. They know fox news is a piece of shit and don't bother with it. They don't suddenly start screaming "THE LIBERALS ARE COMING, THE LIBERALS ARE COMING", they discuss their political views rationally.
-
^ again, just because Im not "in lock step with you" you have annointed your views SUPERIOR, and again judge mine as inferior...
I dont care about what yoru friends think.. with all due respect. its moot to me.
It appears to me that you have some sort of issue with those who disagree with you and you want to CONTROL what I can feel , think , or believe.
You come off as nothing but hostile and judgemental...You do NOT know me..and its not fair of you to continue to slag me. I have NOT done this on your views, nor do I judge you.
You make these allegations about my posts.. quote the ones you think are "outragous" I dont see it?? I have discussed my views succinctly. I can tell you can not counter them without name calling..
-
/ argument.
continue thread.
-
^ im not arguing Im trying to explain and find out why this guy wont let off my neck with the "calling me a "troll"???.
Its depressing..
-
^ again, just because Im not "in lock step with you" you have annointed your views SUPERIOR, and again judge mine as inferior...
I dont care about what yoru friends think.. with all due respect. its moot to me.
It appears to me that you have some sort of issue with those who disagree with you and you want to CONTROL what I can feel , think , or believe.
You come off as nothing but hostile and judgemental...You do NOT know me..and its not fair of you to continue to slag me. I have NOT done this on your views, nor do I judge you.
lmao
At no point did I ever state my views were superior to yours, you simply assumed that because everyone was calling you out for your insane logic. It isn't judgmental to call someone out for saying something that appears illogical. If I told you the sky was red, I would expect you to laugh and tell me its blue and that I would have to be nuts to think that.
That's what I'm getting at. In fact, you simply resign yourself to calling everyone judgmental because you can't accept that your views make no sense at all. None. And its all because of "The Liberals" that your points are insane, right? Its not that they don't make sense, its just liberal brainwashing, m i rite?
-
Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
Responses like this is why I think Epicview is a troll. He plays the victim, while employing baseless, condescending, and generalizing arguments that he claims to oppose.
-
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
And the reason I and others think your views are disconnected with reality is because of statements like that. You're going out of your way to blame things on one party while overlooking the flaws in your own. You're blaming the mess on the democrats who took over 4 years ago. I don't think you're capable of recognizing the devastation caused by 8 years of incompetent management by an ignorant man. As much as you'd like to blame it on Clinton, Obama, and Reid/Pelosi, your boy created this mess.
-
EB, should we start a thread to discuss the misery index under Obama and Under GWB? and these sorta issues? as again we are off subject..
I could argue that GWB was the best President POST 9/11..
so whats it all mean? thats the fascinating part..
-
Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
Responses like this is why I think Epicview is a troll. He plays the victim, while employing baseless, condescending, and generalizing arguments that he claims to oppose.
baseless? really? Im not playing the victim..just tired of the slaggin
-
Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
Responses like this is why I think Epicview is a troll. He plays the victim, while employing baseless, condescending, and generalizing arguments that he claims to oppose.
baseless? really? Im not playing the victim..just tired of the slaggin
Your previous posts say otherwise.
-
Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
Responses like this is why I think Epicview is a troll. He plays the victim, while employing baseless, condescending, and generalizing arguments that he claims to oppose.
baseless? really? Im not playing the victim..just tired of the slaggin
Your previous posts say otherwise.
they do not... you just dont like my views...and want them to be gone..you have been nothing but hostile in reality
-
So...is this not based in reality, is this baseless?
lets discuss as its spot on the subject here
As Obama Pretends at Its Freedom, His Gov’t Plans Takeover of Internet
Posted by Guest Contributor on Thursday, September 30, 2010, 5:30 AM
-By Warner Todd Huston
In an address to the United Nations on Thursday, Sept. 23, President Obama pledged to preserve a “free and open Internet” and would call out nations that censored content.
In a veiled reference to China and other nations that censor the Internet, Obama said that a civil society fosters open government. “Civil society is the conscience of our communities, and America will always extend our engagement abroad with citizens beyond the halls of government. And we will call out those who suppress ideas and serve as a voice for those who are voiceless.”
“We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security,” Obama said. “We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.”
Yet even as Obama stood giving high sounding words to a “free and open Internet” and scolding other nations that have oppressive controls on Internet access for their own citizens, Barack Obama’s own government has itself been quietly making plans to take over the Internet from private companies.
Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has been angling to use telephone regulations from the 1930s to try and take over full control of the Internet.
One wonders how Obama can have the gall to claim that he wants a “free and open” Internet when he is trying to take control of it himself? How long would the Internet stay “free and open” once the federal government takes hold of it and begins to decide what will be allowed and not allowed over it’s infrastructure?
As always, Barack Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth claiming all at once that he is for open access, and promoting new technologies and businesses while at the same time making plans for Bi Government to control it all from Washington.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also seems to be very confused about what is going on with the idea of the FCC grabbing control over the Internet.
On one day this week he wanted to introduce legislation that would put Congress in the driver’s seat on regulation thereby cutting out the FCC from regulating the Internet, but then the very next day he reversed himself 100% and decided it wouldn’t be a good idea. It is a bit hard to understand such a whiplash-inducing move but it has happened nonetheless.
Still, if Congress takes up a consideration of how to handle the Internet this should forestall the FCC’s attempts to forcibly take over the Internet via fiat regulation.
Anyone interested in keeping the government’s hands off the full control of the Internet should pressure Waxman to take up his original position.
Others that can put off the FCC’s power grab are Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) — who has come out in opposition to government control of the Internet — and Rep. Rick Boucher (D, VA), another member of Energy and Commerce Committee.
A good mode of pressure is to cite a new poll that says that the public is not in favor of the government take over of the Internet.
BroadbandforAmerica.com has an interesting report about a survey made by Hart Research Associates that seems to indicate that there is “substantial opposition to government Internet regulation.”
The survey shows that 75 percent oppose government regulation with 55 percent saying that government should not regulate the Internet at all.
In other words, respondents did not want the government saying how business should be conducted on the Internet and were reticent to agree that government should restrict or control Internet providers. Congress should be made aware of these facts.
-
Oh my god, both of you just shut up.
-
Because every argument you've made boils down to "THOSE GODDAMN LIBERALS ARE SO EVIL I HATE THEM THEY ALL HATE AMERICA SO MUCH". Trust me bro, you're not the first person to ever be a conservative troll. You act and post in a very similar fashion to ones I've met before, thus I have no choice but to conclude that you are simply a troll.
sigh^... it seems to me that you have no tolerance to allow others to have their views. I'm allowed to worry about where the Lib/Dems are leading us, thats a VERY valid concern within the USA today as every poll is telling us and the state of the country since the Dems took over congress 4 years ago.
sadly you prove my point of how Liberals are intolerant and deal in hypocrisy of saying they are for "freedom for all" but really want to control of all opinions and they will annoint what opinion will be deamed worthy
AND THATS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!! you are proving my point!!
My concern is valid and very much based on reality.
Responses like this is why I think Epicview is a troll. He plays the victim, while employing baseless, condescending, and generalizing arguments that he claims to oppose.
baseless? really? Im not playing the victim..just tired of the slaggin
Your previous posts say otherwise.
they do not... you just dont like my views...and want them to be gone..you have been nothing but hostile in reality
Go back and read your post. How are you not playing the victim here?
Oh my god, both of you just shut up.
I'm bored with nothing to do right now, and I want to play around with the troll. Sue me.
-
Next one to continue the petty squabbling gets the ban hammer. Please stick to the topic and arguments related to that. Arguments about who is supposedly the "victim" or who is the "troll" are irrelevant personal attacks. Stick to the topic, please.
-
EDIT: ninja'd by bosky, post deleted.
-
In that case, internet censorship is totally lame.
-
No, derailing a thread by labeling someone a troll just because you disagree with them is totally lame.
-
The problem, EV, is that everybody here agrees that what Obama's Justice Department is proposing sucks ass (well, probably not Bosk). None of us like it. You, on the other hand, seem to think that it's exclusive to democrats, as if Dumbass before him never did anything to curtail freedom. That's absolutely, bat-shit insane. This is why people aren't agreeing with your point of view. It's not because they all worship Obama, I don't think anyone here does. It's because it's hard to take seriously somebody who's opinions are based 100% on blind loyalties and hatreds.
-
No, derailing a thread by labeling someone a troll just because you disagree with them is totally lame.
I was trying to return the thread to the discussion of internet censorship, what this topic was originally about. :|
-
The problem, EV, is that everybody here agrees that what Obama's Justice Department is proposing sucks ass (well, probably not Bosk). None of us like it. You, on the other hand, seem to think that it's exclusive to democrats, as if Dumbass before him never did anything to curtail freedom. That's absolutely, bat-shit insane. This is why people aren't agreeing with your point of view. It's not because they all worship Obama, I don't think anyone here does. It's because it's hard to take seriously somebody who's opinions are based 100% on blind loyalties and hatreds.
I agree..
I guess Im seeing a pattern with first the Fairness Doctrine and now this Net Neutrality issue, as far as I can tell both have been pushed by the Democrats, as obviously the GOP would not want either, especially the Fairness Doctrine..
would you agree EB?
-
I think, for better or worse, there's really no-one to protect the netizens. The fact is, the administration in office is not going to turn away the type of information it's currently getting from invading people's internet activity, regardless of political party.
-
The problem, EV, is that everybody here agrees that what Obama's Justice Department is proposing sucks ass (well, probably not Bosk). None of us like it. You, on the other hand, seem to think that it's exclusive to democrats, as if Dumbass before him never did anything to curtail freedom. That's absolutely, bat-shit insane. This is why people aren't agreeing with your point of view. It's not because they all worship Obama, I don't think anyone here does. It's because it's hard to take seriously somebody who's opinions are based 100% on blind loyalties and hatreds.
I agree..
I guess Im seeing a pattern with first the Fairness Doctrine and now this Net Neutrality issue, as far as I can tell both have been pushed by the Democrats, as obviously the GOP would not want either, especially the Fairness Doctrine..
would you agree EB?
Well, no. Nobody's pushing for [a reinstatement of] the fairness doctrine. A few people have said that they thought it was a better idea, but I'm not aware of Obama trying to promote it. And when did net neutrality come into play here? For the record, I'm leaning towards supporting it, but it's a damn complicated issue and I can certainly appreciate the opposing point of view. Regardless, I don't see how Obama supporting net neutrality has anything to do with censorship; quite the contrary, in fact.
There are plenty of ways that you can point to where Obama is trying to curtail liberty that I wouldn't argue with, but these aren't good examples. However, the good ones are almost all a continuation of Bush era policies that I suspect you'd feel forced to defend.
-
EB,
isnt "Net Neutrlity" just the spin code for "Goverment take over and censorship" of the Net?
and Yes, Obama is pushing for the Fairness Doctrine, to me they are intrarelated
-
White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival
Published February 18, 2009
| FOXNews.com
President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.
"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position.
The debate over the so-called Fairness Doctrine has heated up in recent days as prominent Democratic senators have called for the policies to be reinstated. Conservative talk show hosts, who see the doctrine as an attempt to impose liberal viewpoints on their shows, largely oppose any move to bring it back.
Fueling discussion, a report in the American Spectator this week said aides to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, Calif., met last week with staff for the Federal Communications Commission to discuss ways to enact Fairness Doctrine policies. The report said Waxman was also interested in applying those standards to the Internet, which drew ridicule from supporters and opponents of the doctrine.
Both the FCC and Waxman's office denied the report.
The Fairness Doctrine was adopted in 1949 and held that broadcasters were obligated to provide opposing points of views on controversial issues of national importance. It was halted under the Reagan administration.
I trust you'll accept FOX news as a reliable source?
And no, your take on net neutrality is wrong. If anything, opposition to net neutrality would open the door for private censorship, which is exactly what most people want to avoid.
And just because there's a fine example in front of us here, I'll point out the sort of bullshit that makes FOX such a disputable outfit, since you really don't seem to get it.
That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.
"I'm going to leave that issue to Julius Genachowski, our new head of the FCC ... and the president to discuss. So I don't have an answer for you now," Axelrod told FOX News Sunday over the weekend when asked about the president's position.
Do you really not see the problem there?
-
^ Thanks EB,
I have no issue with what you used for sourcing...
I dont trust Waxman...Period.
They seem to waffle to what ever is needed to keep power..
-
If anyone's interested https://demandprogress.org/
-
I'd like to bring up a point Chino made a good while back, before we all took refuge from the original topic due to the passing shitstorm. I normally NEVER show up to this side of the forum, because of the constant bickering, but this topic makes my skin crawl and this comment has been bothering me.
I think his point is nothing should be illegal. Theft, child porn, rape, murder, should have no laws against them. That being said society as a whole would still disagree with those acts. If a man released a video of him having sex in with a 3 year old, and then slitting her throat, someone would definitely kill him with no laws against murder. I know thats a simple explanation, but am I going in the right direction?
There are a couple of things about this that bother me. First off, the step this takes towards Anarchy. I would hope that people here understand what I mean by "anarchy". None of that Sex Pistols punk life style bullshit, but the kind of anarchy where when all is said and done, life works like clockwork. No laws, no authority. Just a Utopian-like society where everything falls together, through vigilante justice or something of the like. That's what this concept Chino has brought up implies. Unfortunately, this is easily the most impossible pipe-dream to be imagined. Mankind does not operate on a level where we could make such a system work. Well okay, maybe some societies could make progress, but in actuality, places such as America could never operate on an ethics and anarchic society. I don't think I need to go much further, I think you all get the point. I mean, it would be nice to live in a Utopian society, but tough luck, that's not how life and the universe coincides.
Secondly, restriction is a very important concept. Especially in the society we live in today. I don't think it could ever be possible for America to move towards absolute freedom where consequences are purely judged by those with separate morals. While freedom is one of the most important parts of being human, restriction keeps our many instincts and negative behavior in check . Taking away those restrictions completely puts far too much faith in the ethics of man, and to be fair, the vast majority in most societies have either differing or very skewed perceptions of ethics and ideology.
That's just my two cents on the topic.
Also internet censorship = bullocks. While taking down the things that are harmful and illegal works for me, censoring things that the government sees fit is absolute bullshit. Just look at Australia. That place sucks.
:neverusethis:
Oh right, serious point. Um...oh right. By censoring the universes most free source of information and ideas, we censor freedom of press and expression, in at least some sense. I mean, whats to stop the government from taking down every new age hipsters' blog that talks about problems with both establishment and mainstream society?
-
Great post Lateralus88... very well said!