After reading the bill, I think that it is another clear cut case of a Republican, who is supposed to believe in small government, legislating morality.
I also believe that it is another clear case of a Republican, who supposed to support the capitalist system, interjecting government into an area in which private companies, such as NetNanny, will lose business, thus costing more IT jobs in a weakening government.
I also believe that this is another clear cut case in which Republicans, who are supposed to believe in limited spending, opening a free web portal, that isn't really free, because the taxpayers foot the bill.
I also believe that once this happens, there will be many court cases trying to "separate church sponsored sites from taxpayer funded web services." This bill is a nightmare waiting to happen.
I also believe that it is another clear case of a Republican, who supposed to support the capitalist system, interjecting government into an area in which private companies, such as NetNanny, will lose business, thus costing more IT jobs in a weakening government. I meant to say, "....in a weakening economy."
See what happens when you don't proof read what you write. Sorry, but this was the first article I have posted since the election debacle.
Ho hum. Most of our present-day problems can be traced to the recent trend of governments to NOT legislate morality. If employment of IT professional is such a big concern to the ideologues, then why aren't they screaming for the legalization of internet streaming media snuff films or consensual gladiator fights to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize? For your information, "Banned in Boston" was not a name of pre-MTV colonial-era musical group. And finally, we conservatives do not allow moral-liberals to define conservatism for us.
I'm against the bill because I like boobies...
I see another pilgrim has lurched into the difference between conservatives and Republicans.