There Goes the Internet

[TracyCoxx]

The FCC just approved a plan to regulate the internet.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

Thanks for watching that YouTube video! That will be 50 cents, please. Welcome to the world of net neutrality where conceivably you'll have to pay extra for a streaming video package to get Youtube, Hulu and TV.com. And that's only the beginning.

Everyone needs to call your congressmen to tell the government to butt out of the internet. If we stay silent on this make no mistake, we will not recognize it when they are done with it!

[Amy]

You mean WITHOUT net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the existing standard in most countries, where regulation OUTLAWS charging extra for prioritising traffic, so, for example, you get the same connection speed to fox news as you do to wikipedia and your own blog.

In their capitulating to the demands of right wing corporate interests, the US government have agreed to dial back that regulation and ALLOW certain companies exception from net neutrality.

Without it, expect in the long term, to have much slower connections to sites like this one which don't make much money, and faster connections to ones like Fox, etc. which have billions of dollars to pay for faster traffic.

Very good description of what ?Net Neutrality? is about.

[racquel]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Everyone needs to call your congressmen to tell the government to butt out of the internet. If we stay silent on this make no mistake, we will not recognize it when they are done with it!

Did you read the article? The purpose of the regulations is to keep ISPs who are pushing their own bundled services from trying to give their own content priority. Like Time Warner and Cox giving their own VOIP services bandwidth while they strangle competing services like Skype.

Try to pick something more reasonable to have a psycho conspiracy theory about. The FCC will never have the power to regulate all the content on the Internet. There are already things that are blatantly illegal that they can't stop.

For example, I buy Androcur online from India (which is an illegal drug in the US), and I play poker on gambling sites based in Gibraltar. They want to regulate this. They want to keep me from doing things that are illegal in the US, but they've been unable to so far. So this whole article is irrelevant except for the small possibility that it may actually do something to protect us as consumers.

In your right-wing psychosis you're implying that that this is some Democrat plot to take away our freedoms. The blatantly corrupt politicians who are against regulations so much that they allow completely unethical business and banking practices are the reason the economy is fucked. The Republicans who voted against this don't want this kind of safeguard is because they're getting blown by the CEOs to protect their interests.

You want me to call my congressman and complain that I don't want them regulating monopolies like Time Warner? Stop listening to Fox News.

[racquel]

There's too many Uncle Tom transvestites out there. Guys who like to put on panties and beat off or get fucked in the ass, but are also married to women they have no respect for and are conservative douche-bags who are glad to vote for the kind of people who are against gay marriage, against teaching real science in schools, against allowing me to change my birth certificate to female, and against me having any protection from blatant discrimination in the workplace.

Maybe you're not a horrible person, so I'll apologize in advance.

[Amy]

*hugs Racquel*

Thanks for having the patience I didn't, to say all that.

[parr]

Originally Posted by racquel

Did you read the article? The purpose of the regulations is to keep ISPs who are pushing their own bundled services from trying to give their own content priority. Like Time Warner and Cox giving their own VOIP services bandwidth while they strangle competing services like Skype.

Try to pick something more reasonable to have a psycho conspiracy theory about. The FCC will never have the power to regulate all the content on the Internet. There are already things that are blatantly illegal that they can't stop.

For example, I buy Androcur online from India (which is an illegal drug in the US), and I play poker on gambling sites based in Gibraltar. They want to regulate this. They want to keep me from doing things that are illegal in the US, but they've been unable to so far. So this whole article is irrelevant except for the small possibility that it may actually do something to protect us as consumers.

In your right-wing psychosis you're implying that that this is some Democrat plot to take away our freedoms. The blatantly corrupt politicians who are against regulations so much that they allow completely unethical business and banking practices are the reason the economy is fucked. The Republicans who voted against this don't want this kind of safeguard is because they're getting blown by the CEOs to protect their interests.

You want me to call my congressman and complain that I don't want them regulating monopolies like Time Warner? Stop listening to Fox News.

On top of that, it would be unconstitutional but on the safe side contact
your congressman, thats why they are there.

[TracyCoxx]

Maybe you trust this administration to regulate the internet, but I don't.

Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Maybe you trust this administration to regulate the internet, but I don't.

Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

This is the kind of thing the KGB would have loved to have.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

This is the kind of thing the KGB would have loved to have.

I know... or like something from Communist China.

[desirouspussy]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I know... or like something from Communist China.

Ah, yes........those nasty communists!
Still seeing em under your bed, Tracy?

[randolph]

[quote=TracyCoxx;170802]I know... or like something from Communist China.[/quote


Yeah, Google got fed up with the hacking and spying from China and pulled out of there.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

Ah, yes........those nasty communists!
Still seeing em under your bed, Tracy?

That reminds me of a news article I read...

Ancient Democrat Found

Washington -- The remains of a 10,000 year old Democrat were found, and as you can see, they looked the same back then as they do today:

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

That reminds me of a news article I read...

Ancient Democrat Found

Washington -- The remains of a 10,000 year old Democrat were found, and as you can see, they looked the same back then as they do today:

Ancient Republicans perhaps.

[parr]

Originally Posted by GGadmirer

Ah, yes........those nasty communists!
Still seeing em under your bed, Tracy?

No,they are in the "White House",planning to control every aspect
of you're life.

[smc]

Originally Posted by parr

No,they are in the "White House",planning to control every aspect
of you're life.

Isn't it comforting that anyone, hidden by the anonymity of the Internet, can write something that reveals a complete lack of understanding of what the word "communist" means (or any other word, for that matter) and never have to suffer the consequences that would come with such ignorance in real life -- say, in a classroom.

(And before anyone complains that I'm insulting parr, read carefully and note that I have written about what parr wrote, not parr himself.)

Just want to back smc up on this. It is truly amazing how, on the Internet, people will say anything about any subject whether they know something about it or not. In the real world ideas have consequences. Without the anonymity of the Internet, these people would risk offending others, looking foolish, and subjecting themselves to possible ridicule. At least in the real world we know who we are dealing with. On here you might be anybody. I might be a 72 year old grandmother who is 5’4” and 100 lbs., dropped out of high school, and only watches Fox news. Except I’m not.

The problem often manifests itself in the form of Internet “haters.” The stereotype of the Internet Hater being a “loser living in his parent’s basement” is really pretty accurate. “Haters” typically have low self esteem, little or no real accomplishments, poor grades, difficulty in relationships, and few real friends. They often pose as “experts” in various fields in online forums where the majority of their comments are snide remarks about others--always anonymously of course. On our own “TLB” forum of course the “haters” often make insulting remarks towards other members or use language that ungenders. I believe in many cases fully aware of what they are doing. When confronted, they typically react with more attacks, often trying to “turn the tables.” The anonymity factor protects them from embarrassment, ridicule, or just simply getting their ass kicked by those they’ve insulted. There isn’t really any action that can be taken except to ban them.

Whenever I have a real discussion about serious issues I want to know who I’m dealing with--do I respect this person? Do they likely possess the knowledge they say they do? What do they look like? What is their background? And I want them to know who I am. Smc and myself both teach--in a classroom where no one is anonymous and there are rules for discussion. While those of you who post this hateful garbage to the Internet may pretend you are intelligent, successful, good looking, and a UFC fighter from behind the keyboard, I know differently.

[Trogdor]

I hope folks will be smart enough to fight this Internet ID plan.

I sure as hell don't want the government sticking its fingers into the internet where they don't belong. The internet is fine as it is, we don't need Big Brother holding our hands or cutting a steak in tiny pieces.





Plus I support Wikileaks whole heatedly.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Isn't it comforting that anyone, hidden by the anonymity of the Internet, can write something that reveals a complete lack of understanding of what the word "communist" means (or any other word, for that matter) and never have to suffer the consequences that would come with such ignorance in real life -- say, in a classroom.

It is comforting... until they have assigned you an internet ID. Then you might show up on one of BO's lists.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It is comforting... until they have assigned you an internet ID. Then you might show up on one of BO's lists.

For anyone that supports internet ID's ...



And if you think internet ID's are good and fine, then I got 2 things to tell you:

1: I have a bridge in San Francisco I'm offering you cheap, with a low down payment.
2: I have a job offer as a javelin catcher for the next Olympics for you.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It is comforting... until they have assigned you an internet ID. Then you might show up on one of BO's lists.

Most of your comments aren't worth serious discourse, which is unfortunate since I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by smc

Most of your comments aren't worth serious discourse, which is unfortunate since I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person.

I think she's putting up very intelligent comments, especially with the topic involved, internet freedom.

Some of you might think no one owns it, but think of this, other countries, like China, have a 'kill switch' and America has or is getting one. It would not be a surprise if one day, the president or someone in the military higher ups, decides , "you know, all this stuff everyone is posting up or looking for is bad for 'national security' (an excuse more used and abused than ever before, just mention those two words, and they can do whatever they want) or with their little power mongering, and boom, various parts of the internet are shut down. Joe Lieberman, the same crackpot who wants to get rid of video games, said opened that he admires the policy that China has with the internet, with it's ability to restrict it. If that little runt openly says that, imagine what the others in congress want.

This sort of power mongering has been evident throughout history. And to say that it will never happen because, "it's America!", than those people are very, very historically ignorant.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I think she's putting up very intelligent comments, especially with the topic involved, internet freedom.

This sort of power mongering has been evident throughout history. And to say that it will never happen because, "it's America!", than those people are very, very historically ignorant.

Serious discourse isn't rife with invective, fear-mongering analogies, and links to crackpot websites. I stand by what I wrote.

And just to be clear, I have absolutely no doubt that the U.S. government is fully capable of stripping and willing to strip away every freedom we have. I don't buy the "it will never happen because it's America" argument. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in serious discourse.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

.....It would not be a surprise if one day, the president or someone in the military higher ups, decides , "you know, all this stuff everyone is posting up or looking for is bad for 'national security' (an excuse more used and abused than ever before, just mention those two words, and they can do whatever they want) or with their little power mongering, and boom, various parts of the internet are shut down...

Have you been reading Tom Clancy and/or Clive Cussler? The US military just does not have that kind of power or influence.

[TracyCoxx]

All it takes is for an incident to happen, such as for some whack-job gunman to gun down a congresswoman, a judge and several other people. Then the liberals start pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and their so called hate rhetoric before the blood even dries on the parking lot. It doesn't matter that the left spews the same hate speech. It doesn't matter that it's been much much worse in the past. And it doesn't matter one hill of beans that the gunman is a whack job who doesn't even watch the news or listen to talk radio and never mentioned any of the above right wingers in any of his rants! Because you never let a good crisis go to waste. It only goes to show how necessary it is to take away your freedoms.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

All it takes is for an incident to happen, such as for some whack-job gunman to gun down a congresswoman, a judge and several other people. Then the liberals start pointing fingers at Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and their so called hate rhetoric before the blood even dries on the parking lot. It doesn't matter that the left spews the same hate speech. It doesn't matter that it's been much much worse in the past. And it doesn't matter one hill of beans that the gunman is a whack job who doesn't even watch the news or listen to talk radio and never mentioned any of the above right wingers in any of his rants! Because you never let a good crisis go to waste. It only goes to show how necessary it is to take away your freedoms.

And this has what do do with the topic of this thread that you yourself started?

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by ila

Have you been reading Tom Clancy and/or Clive Cussler? The US military just does not have that kind of power or influence.

They got the influence

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

And this has what do do with the topic of this thread that you yourself started?

I am illustrating how incidents like the shooting are constantly used by the left to call for restrictions on free speech. Talk radio is a forum where a few people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc can get on and say whatever is on their minds and a few callers get through and say their mind as well, but the internet is the one forum where anyone can get on and pour out every thought they have to their heart's content. You can have your own private rants. You can discuss with other people, whatever.

Considering that the FCC commissioner, Robert McDowell raised the possibility with bloggers in Washington D.C. of applying the Fairness Doctrine to the internet, where the government would actually regulate content on the web and then that very same FCC voted to regulate the internet, I don't see how you could just shrug your shoulders.

I want the internet to remain a place where free speech is possible. An internet ID is a way for the government to do all kinds of searches. Forget demographics... which people support my policies and which do not?

Of course, I know this will all remain irrelevant to you, since it's not your liberal bias they would be censoring, and you may support free speech for those who agree with you, but I think this obsession the administration has with getting into our lives is dangerous to our freedoms.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I am illustrating how incidents like the shooting are constantly used by the left to call for restrictions on free speech. Talk radio is a forum where a few people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc can get on and say whatever is on their minds and a few callers get through and say their mind as well, but the internet is the one forum where anyone can get on and pour out every thought they have to their heart's content. You can have your own private rants. You can discuss with other people, whatever.

Considering that the FCC commissioner, Robert McDowell raised the possibility with bloggers in Washington D.C. of applying the Fairness Doctrine to the internet, where the government would actually regulate content on the web and then that very same FCC voted to regulate the internet, I don't see how you could just shrug your shoulders.

I want the internet to remain a place where free speech is possible. An internet ID is a way for the government to do all kinds of searches. Forget demographics... which people support my policies and which do not?

Of course, I know this will all remain irrelevant to you, since it's not your liberal bias they would be censoring, and you may support free speech for those who agree with you, but I think this obsession the administration has with getting into our lives is dangerous to our freedoms.

Who the fuck do you think you are to make the statement in bold above? I am NOT a liberal. I do not have a liberal BIAS. You simply assume that because I have questioned your views that I am a liberal.

I have spent time in jail in this country for exercising my free speech rights. How dare you presume that this is irrelevant to me. You have a lot of fucking nerve!

[randolph]

Tracy, I would suggest you read this report. It is so alarming the Obama administration suppressed it after the Republicans freaked out.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

This entire exchange illustrates what I was talking about in my previous post. This is why I won?t discuss anything like politics online. I know smc personally and believe he is very fair-minded, tolerant, and unbiased when it comes to other people?s opinions--which he has shown to be many times over in his job as moderator. I also believe that his character is above reproach. I consider him a friend and colleague. In fact I would be honored to be able to sit in on one of his classes.

Net Neutrality is an issue worthy of serious discussion. The Internet has always been an unregulated medium. Computer professionals, security experts and social scientists disagree on many of the issues involved. It is not a topic that should be reduced to Fox News ?sound bytes? and name calling. I would suggest that the members truly interested in learning more about this complex subject do some research on ?Net Neutrality? rather than wasting time in this thread. The last time I checked Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin were not considered ?computer professionals.? Their views on technology are not taken seriously by anyone that I know.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy, I would suggest you read this report. It is so alarming the Obama administration suppressed it after the Republicans freaked out.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

OMG... I was aware of the DHS looking into to right wing extremism as a source of terrism rather than the obvious Al Qaeda who had declared war on us. But I hadn't actually seen it.

Originally Posted by aw9725

Net Neutrality is an issue worthy of serious discussion. The Internet has always been an unregulated medium.

That is about to change.

Originally Posted by aw9725

The last time I checked Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin were not considered ?computer professionals.? Their views on technology are not taken seriously by anyone that I know.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. But then nothing was said on this thread about Glenn Beck's, Rush Limbaugh's, or Sarah Palin's professional opinion of computer technology.

[randolph]

A free and open internet is extremely uncomfortable for politicians. At last the public can find out what they are up to behind our backs. Bureaucrats are right now watching what we are saying on the internet. So far there is not much else they can do to control the flow of information. Even Wikileaks has gotten away with releasing extremely sensitive information. Other countries are not willing to put up with that (China, Iran, etc.).

The first step in control would be allowing the media companies to selectivity regulate the broadband aspects of the internet, this must be resisted at all costs.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The first step in control would be allowing the media companies to selectivity regulate the broadband aspects of the internet, this must be resisted at all costs.

This is what regulating the internet is advertised to do. In light of what FCC commissioner, Robert McDowell said about applying the Fairness Doctrine to the internet, the fear is that regulation will simply go from corporations to the government. And governments are a whole lot better at %$#@ things up than corporations are.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This is what regulating the internet is advertised to do. In light of what FCC commissioner, Robert McDowell said about applying the Fairness Doctrine to the internet, the fear is that regulation will simply go from corporations to the government. And governments are a whole lot better at %$#@ things up than corporations are.

The only interest corporations have in the internet is MAKING MONEY, ie Google. No doubt there are big bucks to be made on the internet, particularly if you can control it. Google already controls to some extent what we look at by monitoring what we log onto and then "customizing" our searches.
Check out the Blekko search engine and see how different the list of porn sites is, that turns up, compared to Google.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The only interest corporations have in the internet is MAKING MONEY, ie Google. No doubt there are big bucks to be made on the internet, particularly if you can control it. Google already controls to some extent what we look at by monitoring what we log onto and then "customizing" our searches.
Check out the Blekko search engine and see how different the list of porn sites is, that turns up, compared to Google.

Indeed... Type 'Obamacare' in Google. The first thing that comes up is www.healthcare.gov. That's not because of any search algorithm at Google. It's because Obama is using your tax dollars to advertise his heath plan.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by randolph

The only interest corporations have in the internet is MAKING MONEY, ie Google. No doubt there are big bucks to be made on the internet, particularly if you can control it. Google already controls to some extent what we look at by monitoring what we log onto and then "customizing" our searches.
Check out the Blekko search engine and see how different the list of porn sites is, that turns up, compared to Google.

Corporations also like controlling you.
Ted Turner once said that "power is better than sex".

And just look at how China handles internet.
We'll be next if we are not careful.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by ila

Have you been reading Tom Clancy and/or Clive Cussler? The US military just does not have that kind of power or influence.

FEMA has more power then the Military http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html

[ila]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

...Ted Turner once said that "power is better than sex"...

Was he still married to Jane Fonda when he said that?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Indeed... Type 'Obamacare' in Google. The first thing that comes up is www.healthcare.gov. That's not because of any search algorithm at Google. It's because Obama is using your tax dollars to advertise his heath plan.

Tracy, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the government has placed healthcare.gov at the top of a Google search?
Its there because the Google algorithm has detected its popularity as related to a search for Obamacare. Try a search for trannycare and see what happens.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy, do you have any evidence whatsoever that the government has placed healthcare.gov at the top of a Google search?
Its there because the Google algorithm has detected its popularity as related to a search for Obamacare. Try a search for trannycare and see what happens.

I embedded the link discussing it in what I wrote. It's here http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ts_525959.html

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I embedded the link discussing it in what I wrote. It's here http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ts_525959.html

Of course, if you type in *.gov you will get a list of government sites. Try typing in obamacare and you a bunch of other sites, not a *.gov site.
I think this stuff about the gov. rigging Google is BS.
If the gov. wanted to influence the pub. about healthcare, surly they would have paid to have "obamacare" at the top of the list of a search.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

What freaks me out is how the Egyptian government pretty much pulled the plug on the internet, to keep people from twittering and blackberrying and stuff.....imagine if that happens here.

Last summer a bill was introduced by Joe Lieberman to implement Obama's plan of an internet kill switch here. The bill is called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. This gives the president powers to turn off parts of the internet in the event of a national emergency. And guess what? The latest version of the bill bans judicial review, so the president is free to define whatever event he likes as a national emergency.

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects ?shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed? by the Department of Homeland Security.

Joe Lieberman cited the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing as model which America should move towards. ?Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,? said Lieberman to CNN last June.

The government is very uneasy with the fact that the internet permits an alternate and independent form of media that challenges established news outlets that the government has more control over. i.e. Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away. In that youtube video, Etheridge repeatedly asks the students "Who are you?". Don't worry Congressman Etheridge. Obama plans to implement an internet ID to protect people just like you.

There seems to be an intentional push in this so called republic of ours to screw the will of the american people and increasingly to centralize power to the presidency. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government. Instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Look at our government now. Do you see any indication that this is the case?

[randolph]

The situation in Egypt and Tunisia clearly demonstrates the power of the internet to organize and activate an uprising. Is our pseudo democracy all that different from Egypt? The media and our "representatives" are controlled by special interests. Our resources are devoted to wars and military enhancements to the detriment of our society and its infrastructure.
When will it stop?
Can we stop it?
How can we stop it?
Well, if enough people get pissed off, we can stop it.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... The government is very uneasy with the fact that the internet permits an alternate and independent form of media that challenges established news outlets ...

There seems to be an intentional push in this so called republic of ours to screw the will of the american people and increasingly to centralize power to the presidency. ...

Well, Tracy, this we can agree on. An exploration of recent (i.e., since the end of World War II) history will demonstrate that this "intentional push" to "centralize power" is not a partisan issue. While the Obama administration may currently be exploring the centralization of power with the Internet, the previous Bush administration sought to centralize power through an unprecedented number of "signing statements" appended to legislation. All presidents use their power of Executive Order to solidify power in the Executive branch of government.

Again, it is not partisan. It is about who the Democrats and Republicans truly represent. It's not the people. It's, well ... remember the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by randolph

The situation in Egypt and Tunisia clearly demonstrates the power of the internet to organize and activate an uprising. Is our pseudo democracy all that different from Egypt? The media and our "representatives" are controlled by special interests. Our resources are devoted to wars and military enhancements to the detriment of our society and its infrastructure.
When will it stop?
Can we stop it?
How can we stop it?
Well, if enough people get pissed off, we can stop it.

We can stop, if everyone else will wake up, pull their faces away from the TV screen and switch off Idol and celeb gossip shows, and start thinking for a change. Same with political parties.....Republican, Democrat.....liberal, conservative.....they are all the same thing over here, with the same agendas and plans. I'm rooting for the Egyptians, because there's a bunch of people actually DOING something to change their lives in a good way....and cutting the internet and setting curfews won't stop anything, the Egyptian government knows this, and they are afraid.

As I said before, when you give a government so much power, it will want more power....to take away your freedoms in exchange for 'security' (the so-called justification of the oppressor), and I feel that a lot of this 'terrorism' you hear about is caused by governments to have excuses to take away more freedoms. Look back at history, and as I said, any Americans who think this country is immune, just because it's America, shows just how historically ignorant Americans are.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

As I said before, when you give a government so much power, it will want more power....to take away your freedoms in exchange for 'security' (the so-called justification of the oppressor), and I feel that a lot of this 'terrorism' you hear about is caused by governments to have excuses to take away more freedoms. Look back at history, and as I said, any Americans who think this country is immune, just because it's America, shows just how historically ignorant Americans are.

If you applied this healthy skepticism and robust view of American history a little more broadly, you might be less prone to falling into lock-step with positions that are promulgated behind the scenes by those who have power and who care nothing about your well-being or your rights -- positions that are against your economic and social interests.

It's a suggestion, offered respectfully in exchange for the fine paragraph I have quoted from you above.

[randolph]

The uprisings popping up around the world and even the embryonic protests here in the US may be symptomatic of a realization that the centralization of political power is not beneficial for the populace.
The attempts to emasculate the unions here is a blatant attempt to centralize power. The conservatives preach smaller government but their adjenda shows their real intent is more powerful centralized government. The people are finally beginning realize this.
Highly centralized governments have been disastrous for the world.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by randolph

The uprisings popping up around the world and even the embryonic protests here in the US may be symptomatic of a realization that the centralization of political power is not beneficial for the populace.
The attempts to emasculate the unions here is a blatant attempt to centralize power. The conservatives preach smaller government but their adjenda shows their real intent is more powerful centralized government. The people are finally beginning realize this.
Highly centralized governments have been disastrous for the world.

I don't know what you have been drinking but, would you save me some?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I don't know what you have been drinking but, would you save me some?

Can you name me one centralized government that has been good for the world?
Lets see, Rome?, England?, Russia?, Germany?, Japan?, USA?

It's just war, war, war and oppression of the little guy.