1 posted on
02/12/2007 9:12:08 AM PST by
steve-b
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-61 next last
To: steve-b
lol.. tards.
Here lets see what I look at online, FR, THR, booty vote!, gmail, amd forum... pretty boring stuff...
To: steve-b
Party of Smaller Government, right....
3 posted on
02/12/2007 9:14:17 AM PST by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: steve-b
To: steve-b
Look for his ties to the storage industry.
5 posted on
02/12/2007 9:15:17 AM PST by
NonValueAdded
(Prevent Glo-Ball Warming ... turn out the sun when not in use)
To: steve-b
I guess I better stop surfing all those porn sites!
8 posted on
02/12/2007 9:16:21 AM PST by
stm
(Believe 1% of what you hear in the drive-by media and take half of that with a grain of salt)
To: steve-b
How is this any different than requiring all telephone companies to record all conversations? Or from requiring all cable television companies from recording what is watched and when? I don't thing the War on Terror requires that kind of sacrifice yet. If there's a question about somebody, sure check out their Internet traffic. Otherwise leave these businesses alone. A little too much fascism for me.
10 posted on
02/12/2007 9:16:39 AM PST by
rhombus
To: steve-b
And they wonder why I don't vote any more.
It is too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the ba@@@rds.
Who is John Galt?
11 posted on
02/12/2007 9:17:20 AM PST by
RobRoy
(Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in 1938.)
To: steve-b
14 posted on
02/12/2007 9:18:16 AM PST by
dmw
(Aren't you glad you use common sense, don't you wish everybody did?)
To: steve-b
So much for the party of small government...
To: Gabz
19 posted on
02/12/2007 9:19:11 AM PST by
qam1
(There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
To: steve-b
Big brother is watching and he's attempting to violate our First Amendment right to FRee speech, WITHOUT government intrusion!
21 posted on
02/12/2007 9:20:21 AM PST by
NRA2BFree
(DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008! HE IS AN HONEST CONSERVATIVE!!)
To: steve-b
...dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith Further proof that if you frame a violation of constitutional rights as necessary for protection you have a better chance of success.
22 posted on
02/12/2007 9:20:48 AM PST by
gdani
(Save the cheerleader, save the world)
To: steve-b
better to do a 10 year pilot program of all elected officials and govt bureaucrats to prove such a programs usefulness
To: steve-b
Clueless.
Let's see... the Republicans, rightly or wrongly, have been criticized for their domestic warrentless wiretaps of "terrorists,", and this lame-brain pulls this stunt?
"The Stupid Party" indeed.
24 posted on
02/12/2007 9:21:08 AM PST by
jude24
To: steve-b
More toys for Hillary to play with. Idiots.
25 posted on
02/12/2007 9:21:37 AM PST by
M203M4
To: traviskicks; ShadowAce
26 posted on
02/12/2007 9:22:49 AM PST by
KoRn
To: steve-b; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...
Nanny State STUPIDITY Ping............
28 posted on
02/12/2007 9:23:22 AM PST by
Gabz
(I like mine with lettuce and tomato, heinz57 and french-fried potatoes)
To: steve-b
While DOABLE.... from a technical point of view, it is damn expensive, will create a huge cost burden on those with Internet connections, and
ultimately a WORTHLESS exercise.
If I want to hide my presence and actions on the Internet, I can do so in such a manner that it would be next to impossible for someone to track my actions.
To: steve-b
What an idiot..... Another reason the Republican's are losing. Even if they wanted to keep all the data, where would they store it?
31 posted on
02/12/2007 9:25:12 AM PST by
Roux
To: steve-b
He will never be re-elected.
35 posted on
02/12/2007 9:26:42 AM PST by
OPS4
(Ops4 God Bless America!)
To: steve-b
When did the Republican party take a lurch towards fascism?
36 posted on
02/12/2007 9:27:05 AM PST by
Centurion2000
(If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
To: steve-b
I knew someone was after my recipe for lobster stuffed ravioli!
38 posted on
02/12/2007 9:27:23 AM PST by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: steve-b
And people wonder why I sold my ISP Biz.
40 posted on
02/12/2007 9:28:50 AM PST by
Petruchio
(Single, Available, Easy)
To: steve-b
Just shows the major disconnect between so called Republicans and the hope for smaller government....
To: steve-b
First thought: It wouldn't survive the first court challenge.
Second thought: With some of the recent state and Federal court decisions, it might become law. CFR did; the Clinton Telecom bill did; and both of this had obvious unconstitutional provisions that the courts let slide into law.
===
This is another attempt to control the Internet. Under the guise of terrorism or 'for the children' or other such shellgaming. It is little different that what both Hillary and John McCain would like -- to control the Internet.
IIRC, Echelon or a similar program is supposed to do this kind of thing, already. It, however, requires a court order. [Recall that x42 had to produce his emails -- some 32,000 of them -- to the court/prosecutor.]
===
Also included is a 20-year "jail tariff" for anyone ordering child pornography that crosses state borders, with a $150,000 fine for the ISP that allowed the transaction to take place.
What is a "jail tariff"? Sounds like it is just another way for the government to collect revenue. Under this bill, the ISPs are tasked with becoming the Internet police. Isn't that convenient. The ISPs take the heat for collecting and get the lawsuits for invasion of privacy from the ACLU.
Who elected this idiot (Lamar Smith R-TX) to Congress? Oh, he has a R after his name, so he must be alright. [/s]
44 posted on
02/12/2007 9:29:30 AM PST by
TomGuy
To: steve-b
This guy must be a RINO, cause he sure doesn't act like a Republican.
Or at least not how a Republican should act.
45 posted on
02/12/2007 9:29:40 AM PST by
AFreeBird
(This space for rent. Inquire within)
To: steve-b
The congressman from Texas is bored stiff and has nothing else to do than to submit new legislation. What else is new?
46 posted on
02/12/2007 9:30:37 AM PST by
353FMG
(I never met a liberal I didn't dislike.)
To: steve-b
Technically ignorant people are usually a displeasure bordering on an irritant.
Technically ignorant lawmakers are a frightening lot...someone tells them 'this will sound good...makes you look like you're crusading against child porn.' Technically ignorant REPUBLICAN lawmakers are a serious annoyance.
To: steve-b
bill introduced to the US House of Representatives would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely. Introduced by a REPUBLICAN!!!! I'm starting to wonder if Savage is right about Repulicrats and Demicans. They're two sides of the big government coin now.
48 posted on
02/12/2007 9:32:50 AM PST by
Tamar1973
(Note to Hillary, Boxer and Fonda: The peas called, they want their pod back!)
To: steve-b
I suppose he'll mandate an end to open WIFI, too. One can do whatever one wants anonymously on the internet if they visit a Starbucks or one of a million other places that provide wireless internet.
52 posted on
02/12/2007 9:34:11 AM PST by
flada
(Posting in a manner reminiscent of Jen-gis Kahn.)
To: steve-b
54 posted on
02/12/2007 9:34:41 AM PST by
gunnyg
To: steve-b
Also included is a 20-year "jail tariff" for anyone ordering child pornography that crosses state borders, with a $150,000 fine for the ISP that allowed the transaction to take place.
Ok, so a guy gets a child porn GIF e-mailed to them from Kazakhstan.
I'm curious how the ISP is supposed to not allow this transaction to take place.
To: steve-b
Big brother government is loved by both of the major parties.
59 posted on
02/12/2007 9:36:35 AM PST by
mysterio
To: steve-b
Before you all whine about it, why don't you read the relevant portions:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.837:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.836:
I don't to step on anyone's Freedom of Bitching so carry on.
64 posted on
02/12/2007 9:38:47 AM PST by
VeniVidiVici
(ĦEl proletariado del mundo, une! - Xuygo Chavez)
To: steve-b
If Hillary proposed this, there would be fierce opposition. If Rudy proposed it, some moonbats would whine, but the Republicans would roll over.
68 posted on
02/12/2007 9:51:27 AM PST by
Beelzebubba
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: steve-b
This guy is an idiot who doesn't understand technology. This law would be enforceable only in the United States. From my PC here in Kansas, I could set up a Secure Shell tunnel to a PC outside the USA and run chat, etc from there. I'd not be violating the law, nor would the ISP, because as far as the ISP is concerned, I am not chatting!
74 posted on
02/12/2007 9:55:57 AM PST by
xrp
(Republicans Message: Vote for us, we suck less than Democrats.)
To: steve-b
Right. And Google should serve only registered users with verified addresses and log every query.
To: steve-b
@#$%*!!!, this wasn't a spoof!!? My head is going to explode...
To: steve-b
It's getting harder and harder to vote republican. I don't go to those sites but it's unsettling to think someone is monitoring my activities. Like Big Brother.
91 posted on
02/12/2007 10:37:56 AM PST by
jackieaxe
(Unsourced reporting is not reporting but a lie or a manipulation)
To: steve-b
I feel safer already.
Not.
To: steve-b
He could save himself time and trouble by just recording all our votes.
To: steve-b
Party of smaller government my anus. The GOP sucks!
94 posted on
02/12/2007 10:45:22 AM PST by
jjm2111
(http://www.purveryors-of-truth.blogspot.com)
To: steve-b
I think NSA has had their supercomputers sifting through everybody's phone calls and most ISP's emails since the klint0n years. This should be nothing new, just the next step for them once they have enough processing power is to start logging our instant messages.
95 posted on
02/12/2007 10:47:18 AM PST by
miliantnutcase
("If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it." -ichabod1)
To: steve-b
I see that not too many people are surprised at a member of the "party of smaller government" pushing for expansion of the surveillance state.
96 posted on
02/12/2007 10:49:43 AM PST by
zeugma
(MS Vista has detected your mouse has moved, Cancel or Allow?)
To: steve-b
Even the Bushbots have stopped saying "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about."
Eerie.
To: ShadowAce
To: steve-b
Oh but being a little liberal is better than being totally liberal. /sarc
Yeah, stupid is still stupid.
104 posted on
02/12/2007 11:30:43 AM PST by
rintense
(Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
To: steve-b
Lamar Smith, time to replace him..... He supports National ID card as well. Back in the late 1990's, he tried to derail legislation to get rid of the requirement that SS#'s had to be displayed on driver's licenses !
Statist's regardless of partied need to be relieved of duty - removed from office.
To: steve-b
Why are they needing to look at everyones. MYOB!!! In case they don't know what that means...Mind your own business. Government is getting more and more intrusive everyday.
To: steve-b
Stalin would have loved this. Yet our borders are wide open, and this administration has made it clear to the border guards to do nothing, or else!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-61 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson