Nice try, subby, but fail.

Farking crybaby. You lost. Get over it, asshat.

yes subby, and you're first on the list

Greenlighted?

What the hell.

I'm so concerned...

tchamber: Nice try, subby, but fail.

Farking crybaby. You lost. Get over it, asshat.

So you are cool with your rights being trampled on because "you won"?

There is already no total free speech. Threats for example are treated no different online than in person. That is fine.

What is not fine is censoring information that could possible be used to commit an already illegal act (like bomb plans or instructions to convert semi auto guns into full auto). Actually building the device may be a crime, but possessing the information on how to do it should not be.

Joystk: Greenlighted?

What the hell.

color me surprised.

/sucks at HTML
//was going to do that text in green

Nice try, subby, but fail.

Farking crybaby. You lost. Get over it, asshat.

I voted for Obama, Little Mr. Insult. If a Republican about to be in power said the same thing, I'd submit that too. And yes, free speech has some limits, but banning porn or violence shouldn't be one of them. Just look at the Aussies.

/subby

Good thing this is more or less impossible with the current setup for the internet. Good farking luck bypassing tor for one and good luck convincing telcos that spending money on equipment they don't already have and will only be used by the government is a good idea.

Then again AT&T did try it.

/posting from AT&T U-Verse!
//my world delivered to someone else

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: What is not fine is censoring information that could possible be used to commit an already illegal act (like bomb plans or instructions to convert semi auto guns into full auto). Actually building the device may be a crime, but possessing the information on how to do it should not be.

Your faux outrage is boring..

JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy: Your faux outrage is boring..

So you'd be fine with the government banning what they deem 'illegal' or 'immoral' websites? Just look at how well the "Hide it so they can't do it" approach worked with sex.

smooshie: Nice try, subby, but fail.

Farking crybaby. You lost. Get over it, asshat.

I voted for Obama, Little Mr. Insult. If a Republican about to be in power said the same thing, I'd submit that too. And yes, free speech has some limits, but banning porn or violence shouldn't be one of them. Just look at the Aussies.

/subby

B-b-b-but Republicans are all bad and nasty and evil while Democrats are teh good guys and only want whats best for you and never do anything wrong.

I also voted for Obama, but some people need to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that yes, he is actually human and is not infallible. If Ashcroft or Gonzales had said this the screaming around here would be loud and constant, and rightfully so.

smooshie: Nice try, subby, but fail.

Farking crybaby. You lost. Get over it, asshat.

I voted for Obama, Little Mr. Insult. If a Republican about to be in power said the same thing, I'd submit that too. And yes, free speech has some limits, but banning porn or violence shouldn't be one of them. Just look at the Aussies.

/subby

The bamabots are getting sensitive because "change we can believe in" apparently meant "going back 8 years in time", so any negative news about the upcoming administration is suddenly a worthless partisan scare attack (probably from distributed republican talking points).

/they'll get over it
//still hopeful obama will do a good job.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: So you are cool with your rights being trampled on because "you won"?

There is already no total free speech. Threats for example are treated no different online than in person. That is fine.

What is not fine is censoring information that could possible be used to commit an already illegal act (like bomb plans or instructions to convert semi auto guns into full auto). Actually building the device may be a crime, but possessing the information on how to do it should not be.

Nobody answer his nutter. You should see some of the lunacy he has been peddling in other threads.

meekychuppet: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: So you are cool with your rights being trampled on because "you won"?

There is already no total free speech. Threats for example are treated no different online than in person. That is fine.

What is not fine is censoring information that could possible be used to commit an already illegal act (like bomb plans or instructions to convert semi auto guns into full auto). Actually building the device may be a crime, but possessing the information on how to do it should not be.

Nobody answer his nutter. You should see some of the lunacy he has been peddling in other threads.

But what if he's right?

The sky is falling.

El Freak: B-b-b-but Republicans are all bad and nasty and evil while Democrats are teh good guys and only want whats best for you and never do anything wrong.

Well, both parties have their authoritarians. For the Republicans, it's the goddamn fundies, for the Dems, it's hypersensitive hippies.

VlagimarPutin: The bamabots are getting sensitive because "change we can believe in" apparently meant "going back 8 years in time", so any negative news about the upcoming administration is suddenly a worthless partisan scare attack (probably from distributed republican talking points).

And yet if Obama picked complete newbies, Republicans would be criticizing him for too much risk-taking when the nation is facing so much trouble. They'll yell at him anyway, might as well pick the experienced guys.

VlagimarPutin: The bamabots are getting sensitive because "change we can believe in" apparently meant "going back 8 years in time",

See, this is where you have it wrong. People who voted for Obama didn't believe any of that shiat. Joke's on you for taking a politician at his word.
They just wanted to hear people biatch about sour grapes for 4 or 8 years.
Ha, everyone point and laugh.

Some other gems from this nitwit blogger:

"Media Attacked Bush Over Baseless Conscription Fears, Ignores Conscription Calls From Obama And Other Dems"

"Daily Kos And Other Lefties Will No Longer Call Powell 'Uncle Tom'"

"When Will MSM Report Obama's Support for Kenyan Tyrant Odinga?"


That's some busted news, alright. Who actually reads this crap?

smooshie: El Freak: B-b-b-but Republicans are all bad and nasty and evil while Democrats are teh good guys and only want whats best for you and never do anything wrong.

Well, both parties have their authoritarians. For the Republicans, it's the goddamn fundies, for the Dems, it's hypersensitive hippies.

VlagimarPutin: The bamabots are getting sensitive because "change we can believe in" apparently meant "going back 8 years in time", so any negative news about the upcoming administration is suddenly a worthless partisan scare attack (probably from distributed republican talking points).

And yet if Obama picked complete newbies, Republicans would be criticizing him for too much risk-taking when the nation is facing so much trouble. They'll yell at him anyway, might as well pick the experienced guys.

Oh I don't know, I think a lot of people were actually hopeful that the guy would bring some change to Washington. It's becoming more and more clear that this isn't going to happen.

Coolhaus: That's some busted news, alright. Who actually reads this crap?

Sorry :(

I tried linking to the audio, but it wouldn't let me.

I'm surprised the Republicans haven't pushed harder to regulate online speech. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who wouldn't mind shutting up dissenting viewpoints either.

sooner or later, someone inside the beltway is going to try to shut down sites like this one. it's inevitable. I just don't know who's going to take a stab at it first.

It doesn't matter what the Attorney General is in favor of, it matters how well he or she serves the office.

What worries me is this quote from the link to national review^:
"After a 1998 hearing, Holder filed a written response to similar questions to Sen. Arlen Specter, listing three cases where state authorities failed to bring charges. However, under all three federal prosecutions, the defendants were acquitted."

It really does seem that this guy is driven by his sense of "morality" and not common sense.
Bringing Federal charges against suspects the State's dropped because they were clearly losers just seems farking retarded and a waste of time and money.

I'd appreciate more info on this, but from this little tidbit, I am very worried that this guy would make a gross waste of the Federal Justice system.

/Oh, and I'm all for Obama, but not necessarily this decision

VlagimarPutin: Oh I don't know, I think a lot of people were actually hopeful that the guy would bring some change to Washington. It's becoming more and more clear that this isn't going to happen.

Why not? Change doesn't mean inexperience, it means getting away from the last eight years and heading in the other direction.

slobarnuts: VlagimarPutin: The bamabots are getting sensitive because "change we can believe in" apparently meant "going back 8 years in time",

See, this is where you have it wrong. People who voted for Obama didn't believe any of that shiat. Joke's on you for taking a politician at his word.
They just wanted to hear people biatch about sour grapes for 4 or 8 years.
Ha, everyone point and laugh.

So democrats want to hear other democrats biatching for 4 to 8 years about how the guy they voted for is a shyster?

Interesting political strategy.

smooshie: So you'd be fine with the government banning what they deem 'illegal' or 'immoral' websites? Just look at how well the "Hide it so they can't do it" approach worked with sex.

Banning of content on the internet is not a new phenomena.

smooshie: I voted for Obama, Little Mr. Insult. If a Republican about to be in power said the same thing, I'd submit that too. And yes, free speech has some limits, but banning porn or violence shouldn't be one of them. Just look at the Aussies.

/subby

You're really going to believe NewsBusters as a good source for this kind of information? Just how much more biased can you get then these people?

VlagimarPutin: So democrats want to hear other democrats biatching for 4 to 8 years about how the guy they voted for is a shyster?

How is he a shyster when all he promised is hope and change?

The change has already happened, and they hope he can do better.

He's already fulfilled his campaign promises.

Successful presidency. Moreso than Reagans'.

GAT_00: You're really going to believe NewsBusters as a good source for this kind of information? Just how much more biased can you get then these people?

I don't believe NewsBusters, I believe the original audio clip.

smooshie: I don't believe NewsBusters, I believe the original audio clip.

Got anything more current than 9 years ago? Anything that wasn't a knee-jerk reaction? How about counter quotes? How about anything that wasn't one comment? If that really is his standard position, I'll expect more info. Actually, how about something from a respectable site?

Holder's wonderful views on marijuana

Oh goody.

smooshie: Holder's wonderful views on marijuana

Oh goody.

PROBABLY JUST A KNEE JERK REACTION. HOW ABOUT COUNTER QUOTES? I TRUST OBAMA, HE WOULDNT DO THIS TO US!

I just looked real quick. I see this quote, and ONLY this quote from Holder about censorship. I see nothing else. One comment, made 9 years ago. That's some real reaching.

smooshie: I don't believe NewsBusters, I believe the original audio clip.

As well you should. The Obama crowd still has too many stars in their eyes to see anything else.

/voted for Ron Paul

VlagimarPutin: smooshie: Holder's wonderful views on marijuana

Oh goody.

PROBABLY JUST A KNEE JERK REACTION. HOW ABOUT COUNTER QUOTES? I TRUST OBAMA, HE WOULDNT DO THIS TO US!

*yawn*

Link (new window)


Seems really well informed here, too.

HowlingFrog: As well you should. The Obama crowd still has too many stars in their eyes to see anything else.

/voted for Ron Paul

Of course, this thread wasn't WHARRGARBL-riffic enough.

I don't believe NewsBusters, I believe the original audio clip.

Ditto

Link for yet more of Holder's opinion on the Internets (new window)

Oooo, here he is on pardoning terrorists:

Link (new window)

GAT_00: Of course, this thread wasn't WHARRGARBL-riffic enough.

I see your WHARRGARBL and raise you a Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary.

In his current post in New York, he has played a key role in the government's response to the financial crisis and has worked closely with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve. He also held positions at the International Monetary Fund and was employed at the private firm of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

VlagimarPutin: The bamabots are getting sensitive because "change we can believe in" apparently meant "going back 8 years in time"

That would be awesome! My 401k might be worth more than it is now!

meekychuppet: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: So you are cool with your rights being trampled on because "you won"?

There is already no total free speech. Threats for example are treated no different online than in person. That is fine.

What is not fine is censoring information that could possible be used to commit an already illegal act (like bomb plans or instructions to convert semi auto guns into full auto). Actually building the device may be a crime, but possessing the information on how to do it should not be.

Nobody answer his nutter. You should see some of the lunacy he has been peddling in other threads.

So because I think that there is a constitutional right to knowledge without censorship I am a nutter? What threads are you referring to, and what do they have to do with censorship of information and thought crimes?

"it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at."

How terrifying.

DamnYankees: How terrifying.

Combined with his belief that people shouldn't be anonymous online, and that federal regulations for the Internet have been ridiculously broad? Yeah.

smooshie: Link for yet more of Holder's opinion on the Internets (new window)

That doesn't say anything, really. Neither does your link. screw you for inflicting this retarded greenlight on us.

VlagimarPutin: Oh I don't know, I think a lot of people were actually hopeful that the guy would bring some change to Washington. It's becoming more and more clear that this isn't going to happen.

I look at the people who are most upset and tearful right now... and that's change I can believe in.

smooshie: Nice try, subby, but fail.

Farking crybaby. You lost. Get over it, asshat.

I voted for Obama, Little Mr. Insult. If a Republican about to be in power said the same thing, I'd submit that too.

Would you submit it from an actual news site? Because Newsbusters isn't one.