Liberal media cheerleading for government control of internet

[teapartysamurai]

as-bullies-go-digital-parents-play-catch-up: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Long article. Read it all.

Now, NO ONE is defending cyber bullying. However, it's obvious the liberal media are hiding behind this issue for what they REALLY WANT.

And it's no surprise this original article (I got it off yahoo news) is from the NY Times.

The money quote for me was this:

It is difficult enough to support one's child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the lawlessness of the Internet, its potential for casual, breathtaking cruelty, and its capacity to cloak a bully's identity all present slippery new challenges to this transitional generation of analog parents.

And that theme runs throughout the very long article. Oh woe is me, we need to control the internet "for the children."

Now the flaws in this article are numerous.


A) Getting rid of a cyber stalker isn't as hard as they make it out. I had a cyber stalker once. A liberal liberal moron who threatened me because I won a debate and he lost (of course). His response was "Wow, you sure are smart for someone who has all those open ports."

He got banned immediately for threatening me. After that, he went on a tirade of attacks to my computer. I simply went to the admin where we had, the debate, who gave me his internet address. I contacted his internet provider from that, and they banned him completely from their service.

Well, I never heard from him again. I'm sure he found another provider soon enough, but when he learned, how easily I could strike back (yeah he wasn't so smart in that way, either) he left me alone.


B) We aren't all children. Using children as a rationale to regulate the internet, gives off this odor that permeates through all liberal rationale. That they think we ALL are children who can't handle freedom. We need their "righteous" nanny state to take control "for our own good!"


Most Importantly:

C) It presents an interesting dichotomy. As many liberals as there are like the liberals represented by this NY Times article, I am sure there is also the libertarian wing of liberalism (or rather the Democrat party) that will be against any kind of control.

This sets "brother against brother" as far as liberals are concerned. That will be interesting to watch.


Yeah, expect more articles like this as liberals like this cheer lead for internet control.

Just be aware when they start crying about children harmed by an "unregulated" internet, what they are really saying. They think YOU are the child that needs "protecting."

 

[Ravi]

I read the article. It talks about how parents can solve the problem themselves.

Your hysteria is nothing but hysteria.

 

[Old Rocks]

What else does ol' Teabagger Wimp post other than hysteria?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I read the article. It talks about how parents can solve the problem themselves.

Your hysteria is nothing but hysteria.

I read the article also, and it also says how parents may not want to do that, because of the intimidation to themselves and their kids, blah blah blah.

The political slant of the story is pretty obvious. That LIBERALS do not want to see it, or rather does not wish US to see it, is no surprise whatsoever.

 

[mudwhistle]

I read the article. It talks about how parents can solve the problem themselves.

Your hysteria is nothing but hysteria.

They gonna try to stifle freedom of speech on the internet. This Wikileaks situation is made to order for them. Now it becomes a matter of National Security....and they can say it with a straight face.

 

[midcan5]

Amazing how some people can so easily classify and categorize information? All they need are a few labels and life become so simple for them. Life must be easy when your only tools are A and B.


"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance..." David Foster Wallace

Linked. http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words

 

[teapartysamurai]

I read the article. It talks about how parents can solve the problem themselves.

Your hysteria is nothing but hysteria.

They gonna try to stifle freedom of speech on the internet. This Wikileaks situation is made to order for them. Now it becomes a matter of National Security....and they can say it with a straight face.

You are absolutely right. I saw that happening as well.

We have the wiki leaks situation and now they are bringing up "for the children" articles. Right out of the Clinton play book.

It's pretty obvious, they are going to try and get the public to be for the government controlling and censoring the internet.

Remember during the Clinton admin, they tried something like this as well.

Don't expect this issue to go away even if the government loses this time.

They will keep trying. You can't ever drop your guard with liberals. They never give up, so neither can we.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Amazing how some people can so easily classify and categorize information? All they need are a few labels and life become so simple for them. Life must be easy when your only tools are A and B.


"...the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance..." David Foster Wallace

Which is just liberal for saying "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

 

[editec]

Let's not confuse free speech with libel and slander, shall we?

We don't need ADDITIONAL LAWS, we just need to apply the laws we already have.

 

[mudwhistle]

Let's not confuse free speech with libel and slander, shall we?

We don't need ADDITIONAL LAWS, we just need to apply the laws we already have.

Problem is you only want it to apply only to those you support. They've been slandering Bush for a decade and that's fine and dandy......but the min it's Obama you think is being slandered...well that must just stop.

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just those you support.

 

[Agit8r]

That is really unfortunate. These parents need to be better about teaching kids how to handle the pressures of life, and how to treat each other civilly. Society fail

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Socialists/Progressives want the Government to control everything,including your life. They are the biggest menace facing our Nation. Forget Al Qaeda. The Socialists/Progressives are destroying our Nation. Unfortunately we have so many Goose Steppers in this country. There are very few out there fighting for real Freedom & Liberty. Hopefully those numbers will grow but right now the Goose Steppers are in control. It is very sad but it is what it is.

 

[mudwhistle]

What else does ol' Teabagger Wimp post other than hysteria?

You would bring up Tea-bagging.

Something you're an expert at.

 

[loosecannon]

as-bullies-go-digital-parents-play-catch-up: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Long article. Read it all.

Now, NO ONE is defending cyber bullying. However, it's obvious the liberal media are hiding behind this issue for what they REALLY WANT.

And it's no surprise this original article (I got it off yahoo news) is from the NY Times.

The money quote for me was this:

It is difficult enough to support one's child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the lawlessness of the Internet, its potential for casual, breathtaking cruelty, and its capacity to cloak a bully's identity all present slippery new challenges to this transitional generation of analog parents.

And that theme runs throughout the very long article. Oh woe is me, we need to control the internet "for the children."

Now the flaws in this article are numerous.


A) Getting rid of a cyber stalker isn't as hard as they make it out. I had a cyber stalker once. A liberal liberal moron who threatened me because I won a debate and he lost (of course). His response was "Wow, you sure are smart for someone who has all those open ports."

He got banned immediately for threatening me. After that, he went on a tirade of attacks to my computer. I simply went to the admin where we had, the debate, who gave me his internet address. I contacted his internet provider from that, and they banned him completely from their service.

Well, I never heard from him again. I'm sure he found another provider soon enough, but when he learned, how easily I could strike back (yeah he wasn't so smart in that way, either) he left me alone.


B) We aren't all children. Using children as a rationale to regulate the internet, gives off this odor that permeates through all liberal rationale. That they think we ALL are children who can't handle freedom. We need their "righteous" nanny state to take control "for our own good!"


Most Importantly:

C) It presents an interesting dichotomy. As many liberals as there are like the liberals represented by this NY Times article, I am sure there is also the libertarian wing of liberalism (or rather the Democrat party) that will be against any kind of control.

This sets "brother against brother" as far as liberals are concerned. That will be interesting to watch.


Yeah, expect more articles like this as liberals like this cheer lead for internet control.

Just be aware when they start crying about children harmed by an "unregulated" internet, what they are really saying. They think YOU are the child that needs "protecting."

Has it occurred to you that the hyping of the wikileaks is a perfect pretext for the government to take control of our internet the way China has? Not to mention several high profile suicides and the child sexpervs.

The internet is now considered a battlefield to be fought on and defended by nations around the world. It is also used by virtually everybody from VOA to AQ as a propaganda battlefield.

There is a reason why the military invented the internet and then gave it away free to private industry.

 

[teapartysamurai]

as-bullies-go-digital-parents-play-catch-up: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Long article. Read it all.

Now, NO ONE is defending cyber bullying. However, it's obvious the liberal media are hiding behind this issue for what they REALLY WANT.

And it's no surprise this original article (I got it off yahoo news) is from the NY Times.

The money quote for me was this:

It is difficult enough to support one's child through a siege of schoolyard bullying. But the lawlessness of the Internet, its potential for casual, breathtaking cruelty, and its capacity to cloak a bully's identity all present slippery new challenges to this transitional generation of analog parents.

And that theme runs throughout the very long article. Oh woe is me, we need to control the internet "for the children."

Now the flaws in this article are numerous.


A) Getting rid of a cyber stalker isn't as hard as they make it out. I had a cyber stalker once. A liberal liberal moron who threatened me because I won a debate and he lost (of course). His response was "Wow, you sure are smart for someone who has all those open ports."

He got banned immediately for threatening me. After that, he went on a tirade of attacks to my computer. I simply went to the admin where we had, the debate, who gave me his internet address. I contacted his internet provider from that, and they banned him completely from their service.

Well, I never heard from him again. I'm sure he found another provider soon enough, but when he learned, how easily I could strike back (yeah he wasn't so smart in that way, either) he left me alone.


B) We aren't all children. Using children as a rationale to regulate the internet, gives off this odor that permeates through all liberal rationale. That they think we ALL are children who can't handle freedom. We need their "righteous" nanny state to take control "for our own good!"


Most Importantly:

C) It presents an interesting dichotomy. As many liberals as there are like the liberals represented by this NY Times article, I am sure there is also the libertarian wing of liberalism (or rather the Democrat party) that will be against any kind of control.

This sets "brother against brother" as far as liberals are concerned. That will be interesting to watch.


Yeah, expect more articles like this as liberals like this cheer lead for internet control.

Just be aware when they start crying about children harmed by an "unregulated" internet, what they are really saying. They think YOU are the child that needs "protecting."

Has it occurred to you that the hyping of the wikileaks is a perfect pretext for the government to take control of our internet the way China has? Not to mention several high profile suicides and the child sexpervs.

The internet is now considered a battlefield to be fought on and defended by nations around the world. It is also used by virtually everybody from VOA to AQ as a propaganda battlefield.

There is a reason why the military invented the internet and then gave it away free to private industry.

It has already been mentioned in this thread that wikileaks is also going to be used as a rationale for control of the internet.

But wikileaks doesn't upset the "new castrotti" (as Rush calls them) and the brainless liberal women readers of the NY Times.

For them you need a "it's for the children" slant to get their support.

There is a reason I said, that is right out of the Clinton playbook. The "for the children" mantra came fast and often after Republicans took the Congress in '94.

They are bringing this tactic out of mothballs and are rolling with it again.

It's really no surprise.

 

[mudwhistle]

as-bullies-go-digital-parents-play-catch-up: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

Long article. Read it all.

Now, NO ONE is defending cyber bullying. However, it's obvious the liberal media are hiding behind this issue for what they REALLY WANT.

And it's no surprise this original article (I got it off yahoo news) is from the NY Times.

The money quote for me was this:



And that theme runs throughout the very long article. Oh woe is me, we need to control the internet "for the children."

Now the flaws in this article are numerous.


A) Getting rid of a cyber stalker isn't as hard as they make it out. I had a cyber stalker once. A liberal liberal moron who threatened me because I won a debate and he lost (of course). His response was "Wow, you sure are smart for someone who has all those open ports."

He got banned immediately for threatening me. After that, he went on a tirade of attacks to my computer. I simply went to the admin where we had, the debate, who gave me his internet address. I contacted his internet provider from that, and they banned him completely from their service.

Well, I never heard from him again. I'm sure he found another provider soon enough, but when he learned, how easily I could strike back (yeah he wasn't so smart in that way, either) he left me alone.


B) We aren't all children. Using children as a rationale to regulate the internet, gives off this odor that permeates through all liberal rationale. That they think we ALL are children who can't handle freedom. We need their "righteous" nanny state to take control "for our own good!"


Most Importantly:

C) It presents an interesting dichotomy. As many liberals as there are like the liberals represented by this NY Times article, I am sure there is also the libertarian wing of liberalism (or rather the Democrat party) that will be against any kind of control.

This sets "brother against brother" as far as liberals are concerned. That will be interesting to watch.


Yeah, expect more articles like this as liberals like this cheer lead for internet control.

Just be aware when they start crying about children harmed by an "unregulated" internet, what they are really saying. They think YOU are the child that needs "protecting."

Has it occurred to you that the hyping of the wikileaks is a perfect pretext for the government to take control of our internet the way China has? Not to mention several high profile suicides and the child sexpervs.

The internet is now considered a battlefield to be fought on and defended by nations around the world. It is also used by virtually everybody from VOA to AQ as a propaganda battlefield.

There is a reason why the military invented the internet and then gave it away free to private industry.

It has already been mentioned in this thread that wikileaks is also going to be used as a rationale for control of the internet.

But wikileaks doesn't upset the "new castrotti" (as Rush calls them) and the brainless liberal women readers of the NY Times.

For them you need a "it's for the children" slant to get their support.

There is a reason I said, that is right out of the Clinton playbook. The "for the children" mantra came fast and often after Republicans took the Congress in '94.

They are bringing this tactic out of mothballs and are rolling with it again.

It's really no surprise.

It's not that it's been in mothballs. This Progressive movement has been going on behind the scenes for quite some time. They're just bringing it to a head. All they need is to close down the internet, get rid of Fox News, and shut down talk-radio. Everything else will fall into place. We're only a few months from having the wall slam down on our heads. The tough part is not going crazy and killing politicians in the streets. The temptation to do that will be great.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I still don't understand the need for persecution.

No one is trying to shut down Rush Limbaugh.
No one is trying to take your guns.
No one is trying to put you in a FEMA camp.
There's no worldwide conspiracy against Conservatives.


The more you scream the sky is falling, the less sane people will take you seriously. Before you know it, you'll be on a street corner handing out LaRouche literature....

 

[Father Time]

The internet is a lawless place and pointing it out ain't news. Your idea that this is somehow proof that libs want to control the internet (since we somehow know that they control yahoo finance) is nothing but pure conspiracy crap.

 

[mudwhistle]

I still don't understand the need for persecution.

No one is trying to shut down Rush Limbaugh.
No one is trying to take your guns.
No one is trying to put you in a FEMA camp.
There's no worldwide conspiracy against Conservatives.


The more you scream the sky is falling, the less sane people will take you seriously. Before you know it, you'll be on a street corner handing out LaRouche literature....

After listening to some of the insane people Obama has picked to run this country you would be very concerned too. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

If I were to predict that by next summer they'll try to shut down the internet and it's shut down in the fall or subject to massive censorship...I'm sure you'd say I was wrong. Then you'd feel all warm about how right you were not to worry.

 

[mudwhistle]

The internet is a lawless place and pointing it out ain't news. Your idea that this is somehow proof that libs want to control the internet (since we somehow know that they control yahoo finance) is nothing but pure conspiracy crap.

How did Wikileaks get all of that information?

I've held a security clearance. No friggen private released all of that stuff. Doing a search for all of that would have raised red-flags all over the place. Nobody has access to that much information other then the Pentagon itself. It had to have been released under cover by the current Administration. The fact that they refused to investigate till now is alarming at best and very suspicious. Problem with this is they're very clever so it's tough to prove who was responsible. But no PFC did it on his own. He's merely the fall-guy.

A side not: This PFC was gay. We're talking about repealing DADT and a homosexual is supposedly responsible for the worst intel leak in United States history...during Obama's watch no less. Figure the odds on anyone using this to argue against repealing it.