US threatening to censor internet

[Joram]

Well yes Joram the people voted them in but do you really think somebody's going to run their campaign on "Hey everybody! Let's censor the internet!" He's probably going to keep that opinion to himself until the time comes to petition for the bill and vote upon it in congress and by that time it's out of our hands. Nobody's perfect and power can corrupt, so these people are going to put their best foot forward when running for election and then things can get ugly. Like this.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

This is why I'm more interested in a politicians views on the role of government than his "positions" on various issues. If you vote based on issues, then when an issue comes up you did not foresee, there's no telling which way the guy will jump.

On the other hand, if you vote for a guy who has clearly stated beliefs on the role of government in the affairs of the people, then even if he isn't specifically asked about censoring the internet, you have a pretty good idea of what his position will be. If he does do something like vote for this, then you know that his speeches were all empty rhetoric, and that the guy can't be trusted.

Of course, people can lie, and change their minds, and be corrupted, so it's not like this is a perfect formula to solve our problems. Still, I think that today, politics is so completely focused on issues that we end up getting nutcases who agree with us on a couple things, but turn around and propose stupid legislation that nobody wants with the other.

EDIT: @boru
Absolutely. The government has never been expanded without a good reason given. It's always about fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, protecting kids, etc. However, people fail to learn from the past and realize that whatever program the government starts is going to end up larger than when it started, doing more than it was supposed to do when it was formed.

[Dixie]

I'm again not a specialist of US politics, but around here, anyway, it is more and more about image and lowering the opponent parties (and my guess would be it's the same, if not worse, over there in the south).

I mean, aspirant elected officials barely talk about what they really want to do and their plans anymore, they pass more time just saying how the other's plans are unrealistic, and how maybe that other candidate is gay, has had an affair or maybe taken a bit of drugs in his youth. I mean, so what if he did? He can be a good prime minister but a lousy husband, I guess?

If there was a candidate who did not resort to lowering the other candidates, he might get my vote, unless his views were really opposite of mine. I might at least send a few bucks with a letter to say how proud I am that he wouldn't resort to such lowball techniques...

[boru]

EDIT: @boru
Absolutely. The government has never been expanded without a good reason given. It's always about fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, protecting kids, etc. However, people fail to learn from the past and realize that whatever program the government starts is going to end up larger than when it started, doing more than it was supposed to do when it was formed.

... yes, and we still have terrorism, poverty and kids in need of protection. The only difference is, government keeps getting bigger and keeps taking away more of our liberties. We really can't send these same guys back in November.

[Pentarctagon]

and yet Bush got elected twice

[Gambit]

and yet Bush got elected twice

Bush behaved like a liberal when it came to citizen rights and a conservative when it came to corporate rights. AND he had a liberal controlled congress, so we can't entirely blame him for government expansion (just mostly )

[boru]

Elected twice? Twice is nothing, my friend.

The sponsor of this bill has been in the Senate for 35 1/2 years. (source)

[Mica]

But one senator has less power than one president.

[Captain_Wrathbow]

I find it interesting that people are so opposed to "government censorship" in a situation like this, but that the opinions are very divided over whether the government should be allowed to "censor" guns...
But there I go dragging it off-topic again...

[Pentarctagon]

guns can be used to kill people, but i can't really kill someone with a website?

[Joram]

EDIT: @boru
Absolutely. The government has never been expanded without a good reason given. It's always about fighting terrorism, reducing poverty, protecting kids, etc. However, people fail to learn from the past and realize that whatever program the government starts is going to end up larger than when it started, doing more than it was supposed to do when it was formed.

... yes, and we still have terrorism, poverty and kids in need of protection. The only difference is, government keeps getting bigger and keeps taking away more of our liberties. We really can't send these same guys back in November.

Thumbs up for cutting straight to an essential point.

EDIT:

guns can be used to kill people, but i can't really kill someone with a website?

Sure you can. If you write a website saying that homosexuality is a sin, and if someone reads your website and then kills a homosexual, you must take some responsibility. Maybe you specifically said that violence shouldn't be used, but you still incited hate, which resulted in a death! Your hateful website is just as much to blame!

Thankfully, we're not there yet either.

Note: This really doesn't have anything to do with the gun issue, being essentially just a lame political joke

[Mica]

guns can be used to kill people, but i can't really kill someone with a website?

Sure you can. If you write a website saying that homosexuality is a sin, and if someone reads your website and then kills a homosexual, you must take some responsibility. Maybe you specifically said that violence shouldn't be used, but you still incited hate, which resulted in a death! Your hateful website is just as much to blame!

Thankfully, we're not there yet either.

I seriously hope that's a joke.

[Pentarctagon]

Note: This really doesn't have anything to do with the gun issue, being essentially just a lame political joke

so i think it was.

[Joram]

The explanation was an edit. Seems I didn't do it quite quick enough.

[Mica]

I saw it, but I was unsure that's where it applied. I like to be 100% sure.

ANYWAYS.

I think the big question now is: If this gets passed, what will you do about it?

[Zerovirus]

Wait for hackers to figure out a way to bypass it and then bypass it heartily.