Bamster wants to control internet

[AnnaG]

One could hold pro or con opinions on these issues, arguments could be made on both sides. My problem is conservatives claiming that they are opposed to government interfering in people’s lives, they are not.

.... any more than the fickle Liberals. Right.
BTW, I see you still are confusing Conservatives with conservatives. Lame.

They support fully as much interference in peoples’ lives as liberals do, maybe even more. It is just that they want to interfere in peoples’ lives in areas where liberals don’t, and want to leave those aspects of peoples’ lives alone, where liberals want intervention.

....... and to know each and every aspect of people's personal lives so they can best "guide" people as to how to live their lives.

Conservatives show their hypocrisy all the time,

That's not just limited to Cons, deargamadan.

they are constantly bleating about too much government interference in peoples’ lives. If given the free hand, they would control peoples’ lives much more that liberals ever would.

BS

But anyway, back to the topic. This is about Obama wanting control over the net, not your constant bleatings about the Cons, anway.
The least gov'tmental intereference in people's lives the better. The more it gets into people's lives, the more complicated things get (also the more expensive), and the more gov't has to grow to keep tabs on everything it sticks its beak into.

 

[Chiliagon]

Um, there are such things as filters. Also, if all else fails there's the plug in the wall socket that can be pulled. Filters can be breached, but filters can also be modified to keep blocking stuff. Otherwise AVs would be useless.
We didn't filter much of anything from our kids, but then we aren't that anal and were up front with them enough to truthfully answer their questions.
Some expert. :roll:

whatever.

so you're the exception. you want a medal for that?

the average parent does not control what their kid watches or looks at on the internet, then they complain when their kid does something bad or stupid.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Much of what the Bush Regime did to protect Americans from terror had nothing to do with terror at all....terror was red herring.

It was about centralizing control and the cons who pipe up now were sure quiet then.

Read wikki about net neutrality....it's complicated.

I'm usually for some sort of regulation....like banks (would have prevented the economic colapse)....or offshore drilling (nuff said there).;-)

Net Neutrality definition "is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed."

Still unsure of what the red herring scenario has to do with Net Neutrality though.

I agree in principle with Net Neutrality, which I made pretty clear in my initial posts in this thread. Net Neutrality is something we lack in Canada unfortunately.

whatever.

so you're the exception. you want a medal for that?

the average parent does not control what their kid watches or looks at on the internet, then they complain when their kid does something bad or stupid.

So you need the government to step in? That's just pathetic.

 

[AnnaG]

whatever.

aaawww Don't like being refuted? Tough cheese, kid.

so you're the exception. you want a medal for that?

Nope. We have two great kids, that's enough. I'm sorry if you're a failure as a parent.

the average parent does not control what their kid watches or looks at on the internet, then they complain when their kid does something bad or stupid.

Tough cheese. So you think gov't should run around chekcing on everyone to make sure they wipe their noses and eat their veggies. Just how big would you like gov't to be? Will you complain when it puts a vidcam in your bedroom, bathroom, etc.?

 

[petros]

http://www.emotihost.com/glass7/4.gif

http://www.emotihost.com/glass7/4.gif

http://www.emotihost.com/glass7/4.gif

The battle between the Fascists and the Communists live on Canadian Content.

Rebroadcast Thursday at 9 on SCTV.

 

[Avro]

Net Neutrality definition "is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed."

Still unsure of what the red herring scenario has to do with Net Neutrality though.

I agree in principle with Net Neutrality, which I made pretty clear in my initial posts in this thread. Net Neutrality is something we lack in Canada unfortunately.

....so you support it then?

 

[DurkaDurka]

....so you support it then?

If the law represents the principle of Net Neutrality, yes. No, if it contains provisions other then that.

This discussion got side tracked in a dozen different ways when cflisthebest started spouting off on how we need government internet monitors so we don't watch anything PG13, which has nothing to do with net neutrality.

 

[AnnaG]

The battle between the Fascists and the Communists live on Canadian Content.

Rebroadcast Thursday at 9 on SCTV.

lol Fascists and communists are both socialist.

If the law represents the principle of Net Neutrality, yes. No, if it contains provisions other then that.

This discussion could side tracked in a dozen different ways when cflisthebest started spouting off on how we need government internet monitors so we don't watch anything PG13, which has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Yup.

 

[petros]

lol Fascists and communists are both socialist.

Not quite but there are similarities.

 

[AnnaG]

Communism is an extreme socialism. Fascism uses a central authority to hold control. The difference is that socialism and communism are straight left-wing and fascism has a little right wing in it.
But, anyway, gov't control over the net is socialistic.

 

[Chiliagon]

aaawww Don't like being refuted? Tough cheese, kid.

Nope. We have two great kids, that's enough. I'm sorry if you're a failure as a parent.

Tough cheese. So you think gov't should run around chekcing on everyone to make sure they wipe their noses and eat their veggies. Just how big would you like gov't to be? Will you complain when it puts a vidcam in your bedroom, bathroom, etc.?

I am not a parent yet, don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

and what I'm saying is that Parents should start being responsible for their kids.

 

[AnnaG]

I am not a parent yet, don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

It wasn't an assumption. The sentence I used had an "if" it it.

and what I'm saying is that Parents should start being responsible for their kids.

.... and that gov't knows best how kids should be raised. I disagree because gov't doesn't know dick until people tell it stuff and anyone can tell gov't anything.

 

[Chiliagon]

It wasn't an assumption. The sentence I used had an "if" it it.

.... and that gov't knows best how kids should be raised. I disagree because gov't doesn't know dick until people tell it stuff and anyone can tell gov't anything.

never said Govt knows best. wasn't implying that at all. but if the parent doesn't do his/her job, somebody has to step in.. Child services is a part of the Govt.

 

[EagleSmack]

never said Govt knows best. wasn't implying that at all. but if the parent doesn't do his/her job, somebody has to step in.. Child services is a part of the Govt.

So the government should censor the INet because some parents aren't doing their job?

 

[AnnaG]

never said Govt knows best. wasn't implying that at all. but if the parent doesn't do his/her job, somebody has to step in..

Why? Gov't should only be concerned about the safety of the public. If a kid gets food, clothing, shelter, etc. and is not abused, the gov't has no business interfering.

Child services is a part of the Govt.

So? Why are there kids being abused and starving?
You're worried about some possible, unproven, and probably exaggerated damage to a kid from seeing a boob or a couple messing around and government interfering in that while it allows kids to go hungry, can't roundup all the ones being abused, and can't even find a lot of the ones they do round up decent homes. I think you need to rearranged your list of priorities and take a really objective view at just what gov't can do, can't do, and the little it does do..

 

[karrie]

never said Govt knows best. wasn't implying that at all. but if the parent doesn't do his/her job, somebody has to step in.. Child services is a part of the Govt.

Yes... if someone doesn't do their job, gov. can step in. What it CAN'T do, is assume I won't do my job, and step in preemptively.

 

[AnnaG]

Yes... if someone doesn't do their job, gov. can step in. What it CAN'T do, is assume I won't do my job, and step in preemptively.

That, too.

 

[Cliffy]

The problem with governments is that they make blanket policies to regulate the lowest common denominator and then impose those regulations across the board, inflicting control on 90% of the population that is intelligent enough to regulate itself.

If schools and parents treated kids like they were human beings instead of brain dead automatons, children, who can see clearly through BS, would not go off and do stuff that upsets adults because they know they are being BSed. Kids will go out and spark up a fatty right after the police give them a lecture on the harmful effects of pot because they know the lecture was nonsense. Then they will associate the stuff about the real harmful drugs with BS. Children are not empty vessels that need to be filled with useless information. They are born intelligent. We need to treat them as such. We don't need to regulate them or their time on the internet. We need to straight up with them.

 

[Chiliagon]

Why? Gov't should only be concerned about the safety of the public. If a kid gets food, clothing, shelter, etc. and is not abused, the gov't has no business interfering. So? Why are there kids being abused and starving?
You're worried about some possible, unproven, and probably exaggerated damage to a kid from seeing a boob or a couple messing around and government interfering in that while it allows kids to go hungry, can't roundup all the ones being abused, and can't even find a lot of the ones they do round up decent homes. I think you need to rearranged your list of priorities and take a really objective view at just what gov't can do, can't do, and the little it does do..

I was generalizing, I wasn't making specifics with my comment,

 

[DurkaDurka]

never said Govt knows best. wasn't implying that at all. but if the parent doesn't do his/her job, somebody has to step in.. Child services is a part of the Govt.

Baloney, I'm not going to have my rights infringed upon because some person can't control their kids browsing habits.