 |
 |  DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Re: Ron Paul for president! Amen! | |
|
| |  WaxPhotoI AM SAMPremium
join:2004-04-08
Roanoke, IN | Re: Ron Paul for president! Damn straight.
Keep the stupid laws coming. It only helps our cause. | |
|
| | |  SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN | Re: Ron Paul for president! Hell yea. | |
|
|  TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | RON PAUL 2008! AMERICA'S LAST FREEDOM FIGHTER!
-Tzale
--
Hello Verizon FIOS 12.03.07!
457,000,000 miles of fiber optics placed and counting!
~THANK YOU MY ANONYMOUS FRIEND~ | |
|
| | | | Re: Ron Paul for president! Seriously if he stood a chance and wouldn't sell us out, I'd vote for the man. Republicans suck. Democrats aren't far behind. What next? The turn yourself in clause on browsing. Have you accidentally or ever downloaded an mp3? Turn yourself in to lose your house or face 30 yrs in jail if we catch you... Sadly, who wants to bet we see something like this if this crap legislation passes. | |
|
| | |  SeandhiSeeing From a New LevelPremium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX | Re: Ron Paul for president! said by jc100:Seriously if he stood a chance... It is attitudes like this that keep our country on the wrong course. He would stand a chance if people didn't worry about him not standing a chance 
said by jc100:... and wouldn't sell us out His voting record shows that he is most likely not going to sell us out... He would have done that long ago.
--
You're an enlightened cat, and I dig that. | |
|
| | | | TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | Re: Ron Paul for president! said by Seandhi:said by jc100:Seriously if he stood a chance... It is attitudes like this that keep our country on the wrong course. He would stand a chance if people didn't worry about him not standing a chance said by jc100:... and wouldn't sell us out His voting record shows that he is most likely not going to sell us out... He would have done that long ago. Exactly... I used to feel that way, but now that I think about it, the media backs powerful, money hungry, assholes... Not candidates that are the best pick.
It is out job to elect candidates that will serve US and not THEM!
-Tzale
--
Hello Verizon FIOS 12.03.07!
457,000,000 miles of fiber optics placed and counting!
~THANK YOU MY ANONYMOUS FRIEND~ | |
|
| | | | | | Sadly man, there's a difference between such an attitude and reality. Reality dictates he's not the man with the cash flow, exposure, and name. Hence, his likelihood of being elected is slim to known. Sadly, we're a two party system and both are basically failing us. Republicans have done an abysmal job and Democrats seem keen on taking up the trend. Sure, if it came down to it, I'd most likely vote Democrat. I just think the Republicans suck tremendously and Democrats one step less. Hence, lesser of the two evils. Yet, trust me, it seems neither care much to fix the problems we got. Still, it's all about who you are and how much you can spend. Ron Paul has a drop in the bucket (12 million) compared to the 10s of millions of the front runners. Grass root or not, he simply won't win. Sad to say, I actually like the man. He's not the same type of slime ball we usually get seeking office. Next best choice, I'm hoping obama gets the nomination. Think he might be the other lesser evil here. | |
|
| | | | | SeandhiSeeing From a New LevelPremium
join:2003-04-19
Humble, TX | Re: Ron Paul for president! said by jc100:Sadly man, there's a difference between such an attitude and reality. Reality dictates he's not the man with the cash flow, exposure, and name. Hence, his likelihood of being elected is slim to known. Sadly, we're a two party system and both are basically failing us. Republicans have done an abysmal job and Democrats seem keen on taking up the trend. Sure, if it came down to it, I'd most likely vote Democrat. I just think the Republicans suck tremendously and Democrats one step less. Hence, lesser of the two evils. Yet, trust me, it seems neither care much to fix the problems we got. Still, it's all about who you are and how much you can spend. Ron Paul has a drop in the bucket (12 million) compared to the 10s of millions of the front runners. Grass root or not, he simply won't win. Sad to say, I actually like the man. He's not the same type of slime ball we usually get seeking office. Next best choice, I'm hoping obama gets the nomination. Think he might be the other lesser evil here. On the money situation, he is expected to gain close to 16 million this quarter alone in campaign contributions. That would place him well within range of the other candidates.
About everything else, you believe that he does not have enough exposure to win, so you count him out. But you do know about him, and you do believe that he is honest. Educated people need to make educated choices, and they should do their best to spread the word. Ron Paul may not have had the exposure at the beginning, but through grassroots efforts, he is gaining more attention.
--
You're an enlightened cat, and I dig that. | |
|
| | | | | | FUCK RON PAUL!
hes also voted against any awarding of medals for valor in combat. let me guess troops that go beyond the call of duty to help there fellows deserve no recognition? | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? | |
|
| |  Dnepr
join:2001-11-28
Tarpon Springs, FL | Re: Ron Paul for president! said by Romney2012:Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? ??? | |
|
| |  RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | said by Romney2012:Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? I know you're against this bill as well, so does that mean you support child pornography? | |
|
| | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Ron Paul for president! said by Rob:said by Romney2012:Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? I know you're against this bill as well, so does that mean you support child pornography? I'm not against this bill.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
| | | | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | Re: Ron Paul for president! Is that so? And why do you exactly support this bill? | |
|
| |  JeffreyWilpon please sell the MetsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
| said by Romney2012:Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? I think that's a bit of a broad generalization, now isn't it?
I think the reasoning there is that many people who have a wireless router have no idea if it's encrypted or not. I did a little neighborhood scan a month or two ago, and out of over 1000 wireless networks found, 57% had encryption enabled.
How would such a law be enforced? This sounds like upper management at companies I've worked at---making these rediculous policy decisions with no means of enforecement.
I'm all for stopping child pornography, but you can't slap a fine on every person who runs an [unknowingly] unencrypted wifi network who's accidently sharing photos of their baby or cartoons.
While I like a lot of what Ron Paul is about, he is a little too libertarian for me, but I applaud the fact that he didn't support this.
--
And so castles made of sand, slip into the sea, eventually.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. | |
|
| | DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | said by Romney2012:Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? Yeah, because he supports child porn  | |
|
| |  AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6 | said by Romney2012:Because Ron Paul supports child pornography? Such a law is not authorized by the Constitution, and is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari | |
|
| |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | You disgust me. | |
|
| | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Ron Paul for president! said by james:You disgust me. LOL. Who cares! | |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
·Suddenlink
| WTF? Why just WIFI?
What the hell is wrong with this country...
The main point of my post, is why any of this at all...
As far as the HOW, how do they expect the hotspot providers to monitor this?
More stupid knee jerk legislation..
All I can think to say to this, is WTF?!?
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | | | Re: WTF? That will be $150,000. Please send me a check immediately. I guess since I clicked on the link, I also owe you $150,000. Check's in the mail.  | |
|
| | | |
| | | |  SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | Re: WTF? said by gatorkram:Oh man, this is very lascivious, you better start repenting.. Hey Mods!!! | |
|
| | | | | | said by gatorkram:Oh man, this is very lascivious, you better start repenting..  Mom, it tasts like bacon! | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: WTF? I had to LOL IRL
edit: spelling | |
|
|  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by gatorkram:how do they expect the hotspot providers to monitor this? That's my first thought. It would not be that hard to place a box that captures all jpgs, gifs, pngs, etc. But having someone actually look at each image individually is not in the realm of possiblity for most coffee shops, etc. | |
|
|  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | According to George Ou, it does not require the operator to monitor the traffic - only to report illegal content that he/she happens to become aware of.
»blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=916 | |
|
| | MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | Re: WTF? said by swhx7:According to George Ou, it does not require the operator to monitor the traffic - only to report illegal content that he/she happens to become aware of. » blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=916 If that is the case, then this law is redundant. You are already required to report any illegal activity that you witness. | |
|
| | |  JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA | Re: WTF? It will get thrown out by the courts like all the other children "protection" laws. | |
|
| | | | | Yep, and in the case of wi-fi... "sorry I had no idea there was some illegal content transmitted over my wi-fi"... so it has zero effect... it's almost as useless as the senate resolutions they waste our tax dollars making so they can say "we agreed to state X on public record which has no effect, action, or recourse". | |
|
| | | swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | said by Maxo:If that is the case, then this law is redundant. You are already required to report any illegal activity that you witness.
That's not true except for people in specific positions - doctors for example have to report gunshots or child abuse; contracts may impose reporting obligations; one who participates in a situation in some way may incur an obligation. But a mere witness who is not involved cannot be required to report a crime (13th Amendment)(I refer to USA only). | |
|
 LuksterPremium
join:2001-04-02
Burbank, IL | No surprise! This is what the congress is busy doing? No wonder Ron Paul has all that support.
Go Ron Paul!!!
--
I regret tomorrow more than yesterday. | |
|
| | | Re: No surprise! said by Lukster:This is what the congress is busy doing? No wonder Ron Paul has all that support. Ron Paul has support? | |
|
| |  TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN
·Comcast
| Re: No surprise! said by footballdude:said by Lukster:This is what the congress is busy doing? No wonder Ron Paul has all that support. Ron Paul has support? Yes, he does. If you look into it, the fact that the majority of people support Ron Paul is being censored every day by the big media, and from some recent stories I hear from Florida, possibly election fraud as well.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wjJieSib0
I meet new people every day, and I will definitely say the majority of them support Ron Paul. In fact, none of them have mentioned support of a different Republican candidate, and I've met at least 20 new people in the past week. Since these are new people I am meeting, it does not fall into the category of family and friends sharing your same beliefs. | |
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
4 edits | More stupid bad ideas from the pope? Offloading legal responsibilitys to private entitys who are not professionally trained for this type of law enforcement is just asking for trouble.
They could make Surf with God routers that block all media not approved by the bible belt states, and then force people to use those in the whole country!
The next step is is to shut down those pesky liquor stores and porn stores. Make it a 150,000-300,000 fine for homeowners to allow alchohol and smut into thier homes.
They just opened a christian book store directly across from Frenchy's DVD/Book store (porn store) here in my area.
So its open season on porn.
Oh but we dont want to alienate a voting block in an election year now do we
One more thing, this seems like an extension of offshoring. By putting the responsibility on some wisp operators, they dont have to pay anything to get thier agenda furthered. | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2 | No Democrats? Not surprised.. Only 2 Republicans? Surprised! Just another example on how closely related the Democratic and Republican parties are. | |
|
| TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | Re: No Democrats? Not surprised.. Only 2 Republicans? Surprised! said by Rob:Just another example on how closely related the Democratic and Republican parties are. The problem is that if a bill mentions anything to do with children's safety, they can't vote it down since they will look like they're not defending the children..
This country is ran by idiots, placed in power by people who vote for whoever is on the frigging ballot in their party!
-Tzale | |
|
| | RobIn Deo speramus, God Bless the USAPremium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: No Democrats? Not surprised.. Only 2 Republicans? Surprised! said by Tzale:said by Rob:Just another example on how closely related the Democratic and Republican parties are. The problem is that if a bill mentions anything to do with children's safety, they can't vote it down since they will look like they're not defending the children.. This country is ran by idiots, placed in power by people who vote for whoever is on the frigging ballot in their party! -Tzale Mean while, the same politicians who support this bill, are the ones that are breaking our laws by trying to have sex with minors. | |
|
2 edits | Do they take us for fools? So if someone has a wifi router and it is not encrypted and surfs for porn do they have to report themselves or face a fine as well as jail time!? Another is who do we report it to, local authorities, FBI, FTC, FCC or Homeland Security?
This is just another bill that is further compromising our rights as US citizens under the guise of morality. If President George W has an ounce of self determination left so he vetoes this bill pronto because if not this is something people can actually rightly blame him for. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
| | Overly Lavacious? Exactly how do you quantify "overly lavacious"? Is a photo of my child (fully clothed), bending over "lavacious"? What if his rear is pointed towards the camera? Now I might not find that lavacious, but I'm sure there's someone, somewhere that does. Will I be hauled into court in some Bible Belt state because I put photos online of my child simply reaching down to pick up a toy? | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | How are hotspot operators supposed to do that? Without visually inspecting everything being sent? Then what happens when another group of politicians wants to go after those hotspot operators for "privacy violations".
Meanwhile I'm glad to hear that all the country's problems have been solved. An energy bill got passed, global warming tackled, poverty eliminated, troops home, deficits gone, education and healthcare systems improved, taxes cut...
Cause, unless all this other stuff is already done, I can't see why for 2 seconds that the f*ckheads in Congress would be wasting my tax dollars on this bullcrap.
And they would dare wonder why their approval numbers are in the G-D teens? Congress makes our 'tard President look like a genius.
--
Help keep cable rates low; support "Big Cable" in their fight against the extortionists at the NFL Network! | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
|
| gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 | Re: Won't someone Something else comes to mind...
What about all those young girl beauty pagents, better not take any pics of your child, and transfer them over your own wifi network to the pc in the other room, might have to report yourself.. | |
|
|
| | | Re: hmmm..... if? IF? IF!!!!???? | |
|
| | | Unfortunately, SCOTUS generally restricts itself to narrowing overly broad laws, not striking them down in their entirety and telling Congress to go back and try again. So what we end up with is laws which can be legally enforced right up to the hairy edge of what the court considers to be our rights, and are used for harassment beyond that.
The part about images which are not depictions of real children has been struck down several times, and Congress keeps coming back for more. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Why? Because this sort of thing is what is known as *feel-good legislation* (such as the recent bills extending S-CHP beyond the uninsured below the poverty line). Such legislation is usually designed to be emotionally appealing, even though it is all too often logically unsound. Logically-unsound law is all too often bad case law, and is usually in trouble in the courts; worse, such law often flunks any *common-sense test*. (Note that most gun-control legislation falls into the same category.) | |
|
| | Office Pool I'm really starting to think that some funny guy started an office pool in Congress over who can get the lowest approval rating. It's either that, or they saw W's approval rating and figured the lowest rating wins a 4 year expenses paid trip to the White House. | |
|
TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro | Ron Paul 2008 This is why Ron Paul is the last freedom fighter is this country..
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
And now we can add "Voted against a stupid law concerning WiFi."
Vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. Even if you are repulsed by George Bush and his "Neocon" version of the Republican party, you can feel good in knowing that Ron Paul is NOT a "Bush & Cheney Republican."
-Tzale
--
Hello Verizon FIOS 12.03.07!
457,000,000 miles of fiber optics placed and counting!
~THANK YOU MY ANONYMOUS FRIEND~ | |
|
|
See 12 replies to this post |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Ron Paul is the best
Ron Paul is a politician that i actually believe in. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Ron Paul is the best said by morbo:Ron Paul is a politician that i actually believe in. I feel the same way about Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| |  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Re: Ron Paul is the best ah yes... Dennis Kookcinich. | |
|
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Ron Paul is the best said by inteller:ah yes... Dennis Kookcinich. I certainly do not agree with the man's politics. But I have to give him props for being open, honest and true to his beliefs. Like Paul, Kucinich and Dean did not moderate their views for anyone.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| | PLEASE!!! Someone explain to me how an ISP can comply! How is any ISP, whether its municipal, a big player, or a Mom & Pop supposed to report transmission of images? How are they going to spot them in the first place? Will there be a 'hall monitor' sitting next to me to make sure that pics that I view pass muster?
This is unbelievably stupid, yet I know that some will say that I just don't care about child predators. | |
|
 MysticGogetaThe Robot DevilPremium
join:2005-03-14
League City, TX | God I can see it now Furries outside of the White House That would be a scarry site thousands of them dressed up protesting with signs of it *shivvers*
--
Team Discovery-Join the fight | |
|
|  mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: God I can see it now Furries outside of the White House Don't toss us all into the mix with that stereotypical fursiting and/or zoophilia thing. We're not all like that
Stupid media. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| I take it you got you information from Vanity Fair's "Pleasures of the Fur, MTV Sex2K, and that CSI episode which give a very bias and distorted view of the fandom. Let me give you a few thing Only 10% of the fandom are in costume, ie fursuit and the antics approach something no more explicit as one may see at a chuckle cheese sans the bratty kids. I as a Christin have no problem attending a fur convention (Rainfirrest) the adult stuff is rare and kept behind doors.
If you way an unbiased opinion what goes on hear is somthing than can help:
»www.hartfordadvocate.com/article···aid=3873
The reporter was looking for dirt and found what she knew was not what really happens. | |
|
| | mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Re: God I can see it now Furries outside of the White House And fewer zoophiles, if I remember correctly. If there was such protest, there would be more in-person (nonfursuit) demonstrators. | |
|
| | Crazy people quote:
certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting."
Besides agreeing with all the noted stupidity, this actually gets to me. Child porn is bad, but drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings? What the hell? There's no child being molested there, it's -fake-. Not only that, but crazy pedo junkies get their molestion[sic] fix from those, what happens when you take that away from them?
Some people really need to get a grip on reality. Every time someone tried to block some expression or thought in history, that's exactly what slashed back at them. | |
|
 jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | fon What do I do with my fon router now?
They only reason it passed was it was against child pornography. nothing else of the bill congress read, understood, or cared. this bill is just to show they are against child pornography. IT IS FOR SHOW.
--
3 free for you/3 free for me: Free Stock Trades : PM Me | |
|
| Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: fon said by jgkolt:What do I do with my fon router now? Burn it. Because if this law is upheld(very doubtful based on past SC decisions), open home access points are included.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
 andybPremium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| Brussels I guess pictures of the pissing statue in Belgium would be considered bad then huh?
As for taking a kids picture with her bent over and her butt pointed towards you...yes to some would be enticing but how would they know that she isn't posing and merely just telling you to piss off aka kiss my ass in the nasty sence. | |
|
|
2 edits | Re: Brussels You mean this one?
Am I going to be arrested by some fascist internet police now? Oh wait, I didn't share it over wifi! I'm safe, yay! | |
|
| | Did anyone actually read the Bill? Okay, first off, I am against the bill based on the fact it is overly broad.
Next off, the bill states that if someone becomes aware of what they (law enforcement) define as illegal content, they are required to notify law enforcement, in the case of child porn, its usually the FBI, for other issues, could be local or state law enforcement. It does not state that everyone running wireless equipment has to purchase and setup monitoring equipment either (before someone posts the obvious retort)
Most consumer grade wireless equipment has little to no actual usefull traffic logging, and lately, atleast when you get the equipment through a provider (FIOS for example), they are locked down, atleast with WEP, whicih although is a shitty mechanism, it discourages the casual wardriver. This applies to all, although since ISPs do monitor their network, they will probably be held to a higher standard, which although sucks, is good for me being a network security engineer, keeps me employed.
The knee jerk reactions here are astounding sometimes. | |
|
| | | Re: Did anyone actually read the Bill? Yet more reasons to use encryption. Not that it does protect things, since isps can snatch the key handling, but I suppose it keeps them from automatically verifying content. | |
|
| | SAFE and disconnected All this is going to do is lead to the removal of free WiFi systems and cause our country to become more disconnected. I would be considered a democrat in political terms but this ISN'T the kind of thing we should be wasting legislative time with. | |
|
|
|
Ron Paul for president!
Won't someone
