51–60 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh… it's semantics, they'd vote against Operation Save our Children if they were voting for the Internet Bill of Rights Act
You and I may know that but your average voter probably doesn't, and they certainly wouldn't two or three years later when it come back up out of context, in a attack ad.
I have said this before I will have to say this again until we can get a good answer: What the fuck is the government waisting time doing this crap when they have a war on terror to fight? Concentrate on what is necessary for the war effort, dammit.
The solution to terror is not war, but understanding and working towards a future where all mankind can live peaceful and happily. Not exploiting each other and respecting each other's believes and religion.
The "war on terror" is a convenient windmill to keep tilting against. It'll keep this country in a perpetual state of war; making it easier to deny the individuals' rights (while the rich folks get tax breaks, the corporations get more powers).
Why doesn't anyone (democrats, repubs) bring up 'war on terror' when the taxes are being discussed? Because they know that that is not the desired goal of this so-called 'war'; it is to make it easier to govern, and keep the citizens down.
This is what you get for voting R or D, people. STOP voting along party lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is clearly an example unreasonable seizure, and it seems the DHS exists solely to perform unreasonable searches. This trend towards outright censorship is a worrying one. While I can't speak to the content of any of the sites in this round of censorship/seizure, the DHS certainly seems to be acting outside their mandate.
As a supporter (and someone who voted for) Obama, I'm frustrated by his lack of comment/participation on this subject. There's no way he can think this is constitutional.
I worked as a subcontractor for a vendor servicing ICE back when it was INS. Nobody that I knew was very impressed with the quality of service that INS was providing, either internally or externally. Changing their name to make them sound better and then putting them in charge of something like this is just, well, very sad. (I don't mean to disparage an entire agency. All I have is my personal experience)
It is also exactly 1024x768, which seems even sillier, I guess people browsing child porn run their browsers in full screen mode all the time?
It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?
Sure it sounds like paranoia, but the government will never turn to a giant powergrab overnight. It will always be gradual, slowly taking power until its too late.
It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?
or the PATRIOT Act ...
The more detailed title: "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes."
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h3997/show
It's only when you read the text you discover things like tax credits for low sulfur diesel fuel, tax subsidies for small business, and a $700 billion bailout for the financial services industry.
Am I the only one that is amused that the site they redirect to serves a single gigantic GIF totally 205K in size? It is also exactly 1024x768, which seems even sillier, I guess people browsing child porn run their browsers in full screen mode all the time? http://74.81.170.110/
It's amazing that these operations and bills are intentionally wrapped in wording that makes them politically untouchable. I can see why lawmakers wouldn't want to investigate this. Who wants to be the congressman/woman that went against Operation Save our children ?
They should just stop giving them names to avoid this sort of emotional attachment.
Am I the only one that is amused that the site they redirect to serves a single gigantic GIF totally 205K in size? It is also exactly 1024x768, which seems even sillier, I guess people browsing child porn run their browsers in full screen mode all the time? http://74.81.170.110/
which, incidentally, goes against every accessibility law in the book.
No Section 508 compliance.
5th amendment violation - taking property without due process
Libel - falsely accusing a domain name owner of peddling kiddie porn
Any others I am missing?