• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Internet Censorship

What they need to do is lobby for laws to make stricter punishments for those that are found with children pornagraphy, not just a slap on the wrist. But instead they lobby to take away our rights!
 
Unfortunately, even something so vile as child pornography / abuse is an example of government gone amok. It seems that we either let child abusers have free rein, or we go so far as to label even CHILDREN as sex abusers FOR LIFE when they do something stupid, like "sexting" (sending THEIR OWN naked photo to somebody) or having sexual relations with another minor.

Common sense and restraint is not something you can expect from government. It tends to be an "all or nothing" response to whatever real or imagined problem society has.
 
snakewispera snr said:
So by censoring, we hide our problems.....
No....
Let them hang themselves.... It's the democratic way.....
Click to expand...

I think everyone in Washington should do exactly that. Then we can start over. In fact, I will buy the rope for them all if they want, even if it puts me in debt up to my eye balls. I can get out of debt, I hate living in a country where freedom means Jack!
 
Something else to bear in mind, is that it's in the mainstream media's interest to have the internet censored. It's not just the politicians who are driving this.

The internet is in direct competition with TV and newspapers, who would rather charge us and gain advertising income, for supplying news that we can get for free (and with less filtering, manipulation and commercial interference) from the web.

That's why SOPA didn't hit the headlines until the likes of Wikipedia took a stand and forced it into the open.

The traditional media is the last place to look for information on plans for internet censorship. Turkeys don't vote for Thanksgiving...
 
That is exactly the kind of bill I have come to expect from our illustrious Congress Critters. We need a brand new batch of them - vote 'em all out!
 
Anyone voting for an incumbent is off the charts delusional. There may be a few trying to do the right thing. Those that are get quickly engulfed by the corruption of the others or steam rolled.

Power corrupts .... absolute power corrupts absolutely! Time for real change not hopey changey.
 
I am all for a new political system. Starting with dumping the Democrats and Republicans. Obama did nothing on the state level, it was just a stepping stone for his real goal and he was fast tracked to the presidency and has done nothing to help this country. The Republicans are no better. Why do we have to choose a president by voting for the best of what we feel are two bad choices?

Every politician I hear is just telling everyone what they want to hear to get elected and then do whatever they want once they get in by spinning it as good for the country. If things do not go their way they blame it on the other party. What a cop out. They are all so busy telling us why the other guy should not be president they are not telling us what they believe in and how they will get the country back on the right track.

Sopa is wrong. Lets just hop right in there with China and censor huge sections of the internet because Sopa is one step toward that.......
 
kathylove said:
Unfortunately, even something so vile as child pornography / abuse is an example of government gone amok. It seems that we either let child abusers have free rein, or we go so far as to label even CHILDREN as sex abusers FOR LIFE when they do something stupid, like "sexting" (sending THEIR OWN naked photo to somebody) or having sexual relations with another minor.

Common sense and restraint is not something you can expect from government. It tends to be an "all or nothing" response to whatever real or imagined problem society has.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.
Reminds me of a certain Family Guy episode.

 
BooBoo18 said:
I am all for a new political system. Starting with dumping the Democrats and Republicans. Obama did nothing on the state level, it was just a stepping stone for his real goal and he was fast tracked to the presidency and has done nothing to help this country. The Republicans are no better. Why do we have to choose a president by voting for the best of what we feel are two bad choices?

Every politician I hear is just telling everyone what they want to hear to get elected and then do whatever they want once they get in by spinning it as good for the country. If things do not go their way they blame it on the other party. What a cop out. They are all so busy telling us why the other guy should not be president they are not telling us what they believe in and how they will get the country back on the right track.

Sopa is wrong. Lets just hop right in there with China and censor huge sections of the internet because Sopa is one step toward that.......
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see the need for a party system in politics at all. The problem with such a setup is that it puts our representatives into an automatic conflict with what should be their true priorities. Understand what the term "independent" REALLY means in this context. Those members in a party are considered to NOT be "independent", so that obviously means that they are "dependent". "Dependent" on what or whom? What are they "dependent" on from whatever or whom ever? What is it that they apparently NEED that makes them "dependent"?

Being "dependent" implies that without this dependency, which is needful, apparently, bad things would befall such a person who does not actively try to maintain this relationship that so benefits their welfare and feeds this dependency.

Well, don't we truly ONLY want our representatives to be "dependent" on our votes? ONLY on our good will to keep them in office if they are deserving? Meaning, that the reason we voted them into office (theoretically, anyway) is because we wanted them to represent US in decisions they are being asked to make concerning our welfare as a local concern. If our representatives are "dependent" upon something else, or SOMEONE else other than us, then obviously conflicts will have to arise. Conflicts in a manner that might very well be detrimental to US as their constituents. In other words, not what WE want our representatives to do in a decision making process that affects our welfare. And since these representatives are, by definition, more "dependent" on something or someone other than their constituents, when the conflict arises as to what is BEST for US rather than what is BEST for the entity to which our representatives are beholden to, then obviously they MUST choose the path that is desired by their masters who hold whatever it is they are "dependent" upon. To do otherwise would obviously endanger them to being cut OFF of whatever it is that they are "dependent" upon. Which they must fear much more greatly than us, as their constituents. Otherwise, wouldn't they naturally choose to be independent of such influences, which would be to our benefit?

Quite frankly, I would much rather have ALL of our representatives be completely independent from anything other than our votes, meaning our desire to keep them in office because of their actions they have engaged in in our behalf. Isn't that the way it SHOULD be? Do we want really someone who is supposedly OUR representative voting against our majority wishes simply because the party they belong to demands that of them? That their "dependency" DEMANDS that they must go against OUR wishes?

How many times do you see something really stupid claimed such as "The votes were divided along party lines"? What kind of silliness is that? That is telling me that ALL of those representatives probably didn't give a damn about what their constituents wanted, ONLY what their party leaders wanted! They were DEMANDED to vote a certain way, the constituents be damned. And we seem to hear of that taking place more and more of the time.

This country should NOT be the basketball being dribbled down court and passed around in this apparently big game of politics that our representatives are playing at. We did NOT vote them into office for their pleasure of playing such a game with our livelihoods without even so much as our input. We voted for them based on their promises made while campaigning (yeah, how many actually DO keep their promises?), and we EXPECT them to represent US, not their PARTY. Their party did not vote them into office, WE did. Well, theoretically, anyway. Apparently the ONLY time they even think about us is when their next election comes around, and they hope like hell that we have completely forgotten how much we were ignored since right after the last election.

Yeah, something has GOT to change. What we have now is just not working at all. These people are about to destroy this country, and are apparently the only people on earth too blind to see this clearly. WE are all angry with the way they are leading this country right off of a clift, and they act like THEY know best, so please don't bug them while they shoot for that hoop over there... They've got money riding on that shot, apparently.
 
I agree Rich. Why do we continue to have to choose between two parties and allow them to vote along their party lines when we the people are the ones who voted them in. I agree with some things along both lines but do not agree with everything along the Democratic line or the Republican line so what choice do I have? Big government is now all about what the lobbyist and big business wants not about what the voter wants.
 
Oh it could be worse. My ballot had a whole bunch of candidates running unopposed. Local and state level. I refuse to vote for someone running unopposed but it would only take that person voting for themselves for them to "win". That is one reason ballots need a "none of the above" box to check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top