Welcome to PatsFans.com

Yeah, but what do I know

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Oct 1, 2007.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    .


    Well, well, well. Guess there are other questioners of the "inviolable right" of internet usage. Learn something new every day.



    EU mulls Internet clampdown to combat 'terrorism'

    European Union interior ministers debated Monday proposals to sanction or shut down Internet sites spreading "terrorist propaganda" and bomb-making instructions.

    EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini told reporters that he had urged the ministers, during informal talks in Lisbon, Portugal, "to make punishable activities of misuse of the Internet."

    "My intention of course is not to limit freedom of expression," he said.

    "My intention is ... to introduce sanctions against those who disseminate terrorist propaganda or instruct on websites how to make a bomb. This has nothing to do with freedom of expression.

    more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071001154843.cjbfw3h8&show_article=1



    //
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Ahhhh!
    Step one as European Fascism rears its ugly head again. Sooner than I expected, but inevitable.
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,734
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +161 / 4 / -4

    Wouldn't you think any organization that wants to build a bomb has already downloaded (or otherwise got hold of) the instructions? Censorship might make it more difficult for the isolated nutcase, but I can't see it having any affect on our main enemies, who we know already have the knowhow on bomb building. Perhaps a better choice would be to use the internet to try to woo some of these losers onto a less violent path. If they already know how to build weapons, maybe Raytheon would hrie them!
  4. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Seems like a waste of time. I'm all for hammering anyone in the US or any other civilized nation that hosts kiddie porn or hosts stuff that breaks other civilized laws, such as the law that bans advocating the violent overthrow of the US government; but my limited understanding of proxy servers and malware that forcibly redirects web browsers tells me that there's no effective way to go after people for visiting those types of sites. Its too easy to end up at a site like that accidentally and its too easy to disguise your presence if you do visit intentionally.
  5. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,971
    Likes Received:
    99
    Ratings:
    +175 / 5 / -22

    Here is an idea, don't live in the EU.. live in the US where our freedoms are protected..
  6. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Do we really want to take our cues on this one from the EU? I thought our own first ammendment laid it out pretty clear for us (and yes, I know you can argue intent of the authors there).
  7. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    I think all the principles of the Constitution need to be updated to take into account modern day reality. The Founders who wrote that hallowed document were not beset by home-grown or foreign terrorists; the British would broadcast their presence miles away in their bright red uniforms; was part of their psychological warfare, even. The native American Indians, though using guerrilla tactics, were no match for American arms and tenacity.

    The Founders didn't have sex deviants spewing the most vile and degrading smut the world has ever seen, the way today's porn industry does, so they never dreamed of needing to say that "freedom of speech" does not cover showing your baby daughter naked on a sofa. It was just not even a consideration back then.

    But this is now and the evils that haunt us today are every bit as dangerous to the health and future of the nation as the corrupt royal crown -- and its servile nationalized church system -- was 250 years ago. We need to wake up to today's situation, and not try to apply yesterday's words to today's reality.

    We need a thorough review and updating of the Constitution.


    //
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    While we're at it, we should do a review of the Ten Commandments. Coveting thy neighbor's goods seems to be delete-able. Same with Honor thy Father and Mother. And while we worship our new gods (Technology, Consumerism, American Dream), we can just toss the first commandment. Thou Shalt not Kill is useless, too,, what with war, abortion and death penalty.

    ...You see my point.
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +295 / 4 / -2

    Yes, but the UN wants to run the internet. Remember last year when they demanded that they take over. The EU is an extension of the UN.
  10. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Actually, I see your point in comparing two major documents that some people in the world consider sacrosanct, yet I would submit that the Ten Commandments has had a wider effect on humankind and history than the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment.

    Even in U.S. history there is a long and storied history of debate over just exactly what was the intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Bill of Rights; in fact, that is one of the chief duties of the United States Supreme Court: to interpret intent, spirit, and principles contained in the Constitution.

    Over the years the Constitution has been variously interpreted to say that people of all races should be included as full citizens, that women had the right to vote, that the total Union of States had exclusive powers and authority to raise armies, levy appropriate taxes, make official contractual relations (treaties) with other sovereign states, and so forth. Thus, the issue of what exactly the First Amendment to the Constitution actually was intended to protect has been variously considered and debated over the past 200 years at the Supreme Court as well as in a wide range of other assemblies of citizens.

    The Bible's Ten Commandments are likewise studied by various religious bodies for their own peace of mind and sense of harmony with these laws. Each chooses what they feel is best; there is no solely man-made authority over what one does or does not believe; we must all make that decision on our own as an independent, unique human being.

    The internet, the postal service, the public airwaves (radio and television) are, however man-made instruments. Thus, they naturally fall under the purview of human authority, one that reflects what is best for the total public interest, not just for any particular sub-set of the whole. Controlling the content of the internet is similar to controlling what is broadcast over the radio and television frequencies, which is why there is an FCC in America and similar governing bodies for other nations. The needs to be a commensurate governance over the internet, one which is guided by the overall public good, in my opinion.



    //
  11. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    and therein, ladies and gentlemen, lies the mission statement of the modern Con-servative... behold!!

    of course... he sold us on the thread title, so it's all moot...
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2007
  12. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    It makes it easier for you to label us all that way, but you know that's not the truth.

    Fogbuster, you are failing to differentiate between free speech and criminal activity. We allow hate speech, or images of sex between consenting adults, but things like you describe (child pornography for example) are NOT covered by the 1st amendment, they are criminal acts subject to prosecution. You talk about the drafters' original intent when talking about the 1st amendment. I personally believe that more than anything their intent was to allow us to have choice. Yes in their time that was for a more noble purpose, to ensure the ability to speak out against unjust governance, but the overriding principle was the freedom to say what you wanted. People today use that freedom for less tasteful purposes, but just because of that doesn't mean that we should take that essential element of choice away. The beauty is that you too have choice. You don't need to expose yourself or your children to things you find objectionable, whether it be porno, hate speech, or Fox News.
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    sorta like when he labels liberals communists...
  14. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    Oh, really? You haven't walked past any news stands, watched much TV, or seen the bill-board advertisements they show in places like New York, LA, or San Francisco. There is no escape from the slime anymore. And don't get me started on the public school system, which has become the indoctrination centers for teaching kids from 6 years old how to have sex, and that "Heather has Two Mommies". It is everywhere, and all because some self-appointed cultural dominators decided they like porn in all its derivatives thrown in everybody's faces, and misused and abused the "Free Speech" mantra to lull everybody to sleep.

    No, sir. It's garbage and filth, and it needs to go. And if we do not clean it ourselves, someone else will come and do the job. Whether it's the Muslim jihad or an age of world-wide Chinese domination, America will be changed one way or the other; it will not be as it is fifty years from now.



    //
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,971
    Likes Received:
    99
    Ratings:
    +175 / 5 / -22

    You have been an expatriot for at least 10 years living in Vilnius, your casual visits to the US and forays into the internet are divorced from the reality of living here on a day to day basis. You are at best a casual observer of what is going on here, to utter things verbatim about what you think you know is disengenous and severely begs the issue. To ingest a diet of all things moonie and right wing, leads to some perverse views of the world.
  16. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    You're p!ssing on your shoes again. :eek:




    //
  17. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I respect your opinion but I disagree. I've seen plenty of newstands, billboards, and boy I definitely watch enough TV, and I can't recall seeing any genitals on display. What you see in these places is no worse than going to the beach. Should we outlaw the bikini? (and just to let you know I can't continue this discussion if you say yes) As far as sex ed at a young age, I can see your point here, I belive in teaching my kids about it, but I don't think it needs to be part of early education curriculum in public schools. The gay thing is less of an issue for me, to me it is OK to let kids know Heather isn't any different because she has 2 mommies. Are those school issues really 1st amendment issues though? A teacher banned from teaching those things wouldn't fight it with a 1st amendment challenge would they?
  18. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Wait, you didn't mean me, did you? I've never said anything like that.:confused:
  19. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    no... "he", refers to the paranoid false prophet Moonie disciple we are saddled with here who dumbs everything down and rationalizes to himself that 1) all liberals must be communist; and 2) all evil in the world is the result of communism...

    unfortunately for his flock, he hasn't convinced a single poster here...
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2007
  20. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    1. Your point on full-frontal begs the issue: we don't need seeing anything on the street that even insinuates sexual relations. Young people -- up through teenage years, especially the teenage years -- absolutely do NOT need to be assaulted at every turn by the images and the notion that sex is a sport; sex is NOT a game. It is a part of the relationship a man and his wife have in order to create a family, one that will last forever, not fall apart at the first hint of "discomfort" with one or the other. Sex is serious business, and to take it lightly is a very bad mistake. Ask Adam and Eve. Ask the people with AIDS.

    2. As for Heather, she's not the problem; it's the two people of the same sex living as if they were of opposite sexes that is the problem. It flat out defies all the laws of nature. Take a poll: go and ask a hundred people from every country on earth what is the norm for sexual relations -- man and woman, or man-man or woman-woman. It won't even be close; it'll be like the Pats vs. the Jets next time they play.

    3. As for the First Amendment, that's where it all started. Mario Savio, Berkeley student (surprise, surprise) and "oppressed minority", to boot, decided he wanted to say "F*ck you" any time and any where he wanted. He was arrested, got some wise-ass ACLU-type lawyer with nothing better to do in his life to defend him, and the tired old judge waiting for his next golf match opened the door for him. The rest is history. The "slippery slope" was built.



    //

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>