View Full Version : Dem want to approve ALL public messages posted
Dems want to pass law requiring all public messages posted (including YouTube) be approved by a committee before being posted...
http://andrewwright.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/house-leadership-moves-to-silence-twittering-members/
From Rep John Culberson:
Heres how the House leadership will use this rule to control where and what I say and even exercise influence over your website/blog etc
If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, your website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was “produced by a House office for official purposes,” and the CONTENT of my post would have to be preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with “existing content rules and regulations.”
This is a violation of your First Amendment rights and mine, and is an outrageous attempt by House leadership to stifle and control you and me. If Rs were in charge I would be just as outraged - forget the party label - I do not want the federal gov’t/House of Representatives certifying your website or the content of my posts. I am writing this post personally, in my official capacity, so it would fall precisely under their new rule and you and I would both be in violation unless we subjected ourselves and my words to their prior approval/editing.
I am always ready to admit I am wrong but I am an attorney and this is what the letter means.
This is a story worth following because I am going to continue to vigorously exercise my First Amendment rights on every social media outlet I can reach. It is my right as an American and my duty as a representative.
thanks
John Culberson
I think this is indirectly aimed at Ron Paul and the CFL...
Dems want to pass law requiring all public messages posted (including YouTube) be approved by a committee before being posted...
http://andrewwright.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/house-leadership-moves-to-silence-twittering-members/
From Rep John Culberson:
I think this is indirectly aimed at Ron Paul and the CFL...
Or liberty.
My oh my, one fascist party to another. This country is in ruins.
acptulsa
07-09-2008, 11:43 AM
:rolleyes:
Maybe I misunderstood. Let me read it again...
No, I didn't. :rolleyes:
The whole power of the federal government devoted to ensuring that what you find on your PC is PC.
Yeah, I need bureaucrats deciding if my posts are too far out of the box. Like I need an extra hole in my head...
I want my first amendment back. And the rest of the Constitution, too!
:rolleyes:
Maybe I misunderstood. Let me read it again...
No, I didn't. :rolleyes:
The whole power of the federal government devoted to ensuring that what you find on your PC is PC.
Yeah, I need bureaucrats deciding if my posts are too far out of the box. Like I need an extra hole in my head...
I want my first amendment back. And the rest of the Constitution, too!
What State are you from?
NH4RonPaul
07-09-2008, 01:44 PM
Uhhh, lemme see where'd I put that shotgun?
THAT WILL BE THE DAY ANYONE WILL CENSOR ME ON ANY OF MY WEBSITES!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The nerve of these people!!!!!!!
They are all freaking communists who want to control that last part the media they don't control now.
JosephTheLibertarian
07-09-2008, 01:46 PM
Uhhh, lemme see where'd I put that shotgun?
THAT WILL BE THE DAY ANYONE WILL CENSOR ME ON ANY OF MY WEBSITES!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The nerve of these people!!!!!!!
They are all freaking communists who want to control that last part the media they don't control now.
haha.
I do favor the Fairness Doctrine, though, why? because the GOVERNMENT has given the media on tv and on the radio the POWER that they have. So why should we respect their "property rights" when government gave it to THEM in the f'n first place! Fuck them. I'll oppose the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE once the FCC goes over the wayside.
Uhhh, lemme see where'd I put that shotgun?
THAT WILL BE THE DAY ANYONE WILL CENSOR ME ON ANY OF MY WEBSITES!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
The nerve of these people!!!!!!!
They are all freaking communists who want to control that last part the media they don't control now.
I think you misread it. It is for members of congress that want to post of forums, blogs, youtube, etc... Not for everyday people.... But that includes Ron Paul and his CFL posts and YouTube videos... if this gets passed.
acptulsa
07-09-2008, 02:03 PM
What State are you from?
I thought Tulsa was the one city left on earth that had never had its name appropriated. It sure ain't "Springfield". Have you honestly never been to this thread?:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=130543&highlight=SIR+ROGERS+DE+CLAREMORE
And thor--you know what comes after one step onto the slippery slope...
BarryDonegan
07-09-2008, 02:24 PM
the government does not and should not own the airwaves.
the government does not and should not own the airwaves.
Of course not, Bain Capital should. If one company can buy them all, we don't have to listen to those annoying socialist fascists liberals talking about tree-hugging and poetry!
BarryDonegan
07-09-2008, 02:27 PM
corporations, also, are not, and should not be, private companies.
corporations are a mechanism for elected governments and their departments to be represented in court. the first step towards liberty and free market competition is overthrowing the personhood of the corporation, the second step is deregulation.
JosephTheLibertarian
07-09-2008, 02:28 PM
the government does not and should not own the airwaves.
Does not? ha. it gave the power to a bunch of corporations, where the hell is MY chance to own & operate my own radio? god damn them
kombayn
07-09-2008, 05:29 PM
Holy shit... We will need to make meet-up groups before the Internet is regulated. If they pass this bill, I will walk into my Congresswoman's office (she's 5 minutes away) and I'm going to give her a piece of my fucking mind and ask her how in the world she could support this garbage. If she votes against it, then I will shake her hand and ask how I can help from stopping Fascism that's knocking on our front door. We're no-longer near the European Union's friendly Socialism, we're getting to full-blown Mussolini status where we'll have to kill the POTUS and hang him upside down naked so everyone can breath a sigh of relief that he's dead. I wonder if the Government realizes once they alienate the military, national guard and marines upon their rights, it's over. Those are the people you have to reach, the ones who serve the country, because they'll have access to all the weapons.
freedominnumbers
07-09-2008, 09:38 PM
Does not? ha. it gave the power to a bunch of corporations, where the hell is MY chance to own & operate my own radio? god damn them
Pirate Radio/Television is the future.
"We now interrupt this regularly scheduled program for a public announcement."
Andrew-Austin
07-09-2008, 09:50 PM
Of course not, Bain Capital should. If one company can buy them all, we don't have to listen to those annoying socialist fascists liberals talking about tree-hugging and poetry!
Cuz us capitalists hate both poetry and trees.
One company could not buy them all.
satchelmcqueen
07-09-2008, 10:26 PM
so isnt ron paul one of the few who actually does post vids and articles online? telling the truth? this is just their way to try and shut that down.
The_Orlonater
07-09-2008, 10:41 PM
Those cocksuckers can't do anything. I'll blow their brains out! :D
Tarzan
07-09-2008, 10:54 PM
You should go carefully read the actual blog post.
This is something the Democrats are considering forcing on Democratic House members (if the blog post is accurate)... not the general public. Here is the blog:
House Leadership Moves to Silence Twittering Members (http://andrewwright.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/house-leadership-moves-to-silence-twittering-members/)
freelance
07-10-2008, 04:09 AM
WOW! They are really running scared. That single-digit approval rating must be scaring the hell out of them. They're scared that a few brave souls might just spill the beans on the whole lot of them.
Look for even more worrisome CYA coming soon.
acroso
07-10-2008, 04:11 AM
Economic liberty gone. All that is left to take is political freedom and freedom of speech.
Drknows
07-10-2008, 05:57 AM
Dems want to pass law requiring all public messages posted (including YouTube) be approved by a committee before being posted...
http://andrewwright.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/house-leadership-moves-to-silence-twittering-members/
From Rep John Culberson:
I think this is indirectly aimed at Ron Paul and the CFL...
I think its aimed at any candidate they don't like. The elite don't like democracy they see the internet as a threat because its taking over the media which is their main source for distributing propaganda. The elite's main focus is controlling information and the internet is giving the ones they smear and ignore a place to get their message out unedited. They figure next time around a "fringe candidate" might actually win.
You will see many more proposals and bills like this come forward in the future.
You should go carefully read the actual blog post.
This is something the Democrats are considering forcing on Democratic House members (if the blog post is accurate)... not the general public. Here is the blog:
House Leadership Moves to Silence Twittering Members (http://andrewwright.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/house-leadership-moves-to-silence-twittering-members/)
Democrat and Republican Members both I believe. John Culberson is a Republican.
IRO-bot
07-10-2008, 08:22 AM
Isn't Bain Capital Romney's company?
Cuz us capitalists hate both poetry and trees.
One company could not buy them all.
http://www.buynlarge.com/
Isn't Bain Capital Romney's company?
Yes.
IRO-bot
07-10-2008, 08:54 AM
Yes.
No bueno.
No bueno.
Free-market baby.
IRO-bot
07-10-2008, 08:57 AM
http://www.buynlarge.com/
I really need to watch that movie.
IRO-bot
07-10-2008, 08:58 AM
Free-market baby.
I don't see it happening. Without gov't help or politcal influence. Then it isn't the free-market.
There can be no monopoly. Even WalMart doesn't own it all.
I don't see it happening. Without gov't help or politcal influence. Then it isn't the free-market.
There can be no monopoly. Even WalMart doesn't own it all.
The people who know the economy best, the people who have worked it and folded it like a hot iron, are the people I trust the most in regards to the economy, especially when they talk against the thing that made them rich.
George Soros broke the bank of England. He says that free-market will never equal equilibrium, and I believe him. The man could make more money if he wanted, because he knows the system. The idea that a monopoly could not exist in a "true" free market is merely scholarly manure that doesn't pass mustard. Each example of failed free markets are explained away as "not free", all the while giving more power and influence to a select opulent minority whose control is equivalent to the authority exerted by the government powers. The protection of this sort of "free enterprise" is an exercise in privatized tyranny, with a two-header monster as our master.
The power ought to be with the people.
I think that market model ought to compete as well... absolutists are not favored in the annals of history.
IRO-bot
07-10-2008, 09:43 AM
The people who know the economy best, the people who have worked it and folded it like a hot iron, are the people I trust the most in regards to the economy, especially when they talk against the thing that made them rich.
George Soros broke the bank of England. He says that free-market will never equal equilibrium, and I believe him. The man could make more money if he wanted, because he knows the system. The idea that a monopoly could not exist in a "true" free market is merely scholarly manure that doesn't pass mustard. Each example of failed free markets are explained away as "not free", all the while giving more power and influence to a select opulent minority whose control is equivalent to the authority exerted by the government powers. The protection of this sort of "free enterprise" is an exercise in privatized tyranny, with a two-header monster as our master.
The power ought to be with the people.
I think that market model ought to compete as well... absolutists are not favored in the annals of history.
Then the problem rolls down to this. If we have a mixed economy. Do you trust the morality of our gov't. Do you think they have your best interest at heart? Name on non-corrupt politician (other than Ron) currently surving today?
I'd rather trust the people to be free in the market than the gov't.
Then the problem rolls down to this. If we have a mixed economy. Do you trust the morality of our gov't. Do you think they have your best interest at heart? Name on non-corrupt politician (other than Ron) currently surving today?
I'd rather trust the people to be free in the market than the gov't.
That is the key though! I don't trust the people, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust the corporations!
I prefer all three competing. I don't want just one of them ruling the economy. That is the essence of a mixed economy. That is a rational approach. The public debate, the private opinion, and the general census.
micahnelson
07-10-2008, 10:03 AM
That is the key though! I don't trust the people, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust the corporations!
I think for this reason government involvement in business should be similar to its legitimate involvement in other areas of life.
They should protect individual rights and property rights. The removal of corporate person hood would go far to help in this regard. They should not involve themselves with price controls, from wages to interest rates. They should not bail out failed companies.
They should coin a stable currency, but not force people to use or accept it. To the extent that there are public goods to be leased- airways and government contracts, then they may act in what they believe is the best interest of the American people. If the American people have an asset- lets say oil in anwr for instance- it is the duty of the government to insure that the disbursing of that asset is equitable.
Ultimately, the Fed shouldn't be having these assets, but for the time being they do and so the benefits should be equitable. Some things have to be shared assets- airspace, the wireless communication spectrum, and some legitimate government contracts. The elected representatives should act in the best interest of the people they represent when deciding how these assets and benefits should be allocated.
If I privately own an asset, the government has no right to use my property for the best interest of Americans- its mine so I should use it for my own best interest as I see fit.
In a free market the government would provide equal justice under the law in terms of prosecuting fraud, theft, and corruption. They would not set price controls or get the right to search everyone doing business in the name of fairness.
its similar to our "free" society. Yes the government should try to deter crime- but that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to further these ends. They are subject to constitutional limits and local laws.
BarryDonegan
07-10-2008, 05:26 PM
The people who know the economy best, the people who have worked it and folded it like a hot iron, are the people I trust the most in regards to the economy, especially when they talk against the thing that made them rich.
George Soros broke the bank of England. He says that free-market will never equal equilibrium, and I believe him. The man could make more money if he wanted, because he knows the system. The idea that a monopoly could not exist in a "true" free market is merely scholarly manure that doesn't pass mustard. Each example of failed free markets are explained away as "not free", all the while giving more power and influence to a select opulent minority whose control is equivalent to the authority exerted by the government powers. The protection of this sort of "free enterprise" is an exercise in privatized tyranny, with a two-header monster as our master.
The power ought to be with the people.
I think that market model ought to compete as well... absolutists are not favored in the annals of history.
the stuff the banker scammers are involved in are not free markets. they are not capitalists. capital requires money created via savings, not money created via going through government and using the oppression of government to violate private property laws(corporatism).
Ever since the Corporation(a publicly created government institution to allow non profits and elected governments to be represented in commercial courts) gained the right to be a citizen and profit, America became de facto oligarchial, and its relationship to its citizens that of socialism.
free markets are incredibly fair and just, when corporations are restricted to the same rules and restrictions as any other government power.
george soros is a con artist, and the things he does to make "money" have been illegal in nearly any country in the world in history up until the last 100 or so years.
BarryDonegan
07-10-2008, 05:28 PM
That is the key though! I don't trust the people, I don't trust the government, and I don't trust the corporations!
I prefer all three competing. I don't want just one of them ruling the economy. That is the essence of a mixed economy. That is a rational approach. The public debate, the private opinion, and the general census.
the corporation and the government are the same guy. the fact that we believe corporations are a part of the free market and are private are the biggest scam our public education fed us.
a private company lead by a citizen who is liable for its actions and will profit or fail based on how effectively he delivers products is a private company, everything else is on some level government.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.