Here is my letter to my Congressman... 0oops, it got censored by a particular association I can't mention!
████ ████ ████████! ████ job is to ███████ the ████████████ not █████ it ████ ██████████ and █████████ ████. The ████ █████████████ the ██████. As you ████ Van ████ is a ████ █████████. Do you ██████ ████ to put ████ low ██████ ████████████ in the █████ █████ of █████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ or ████████ ████ of a ████ ████ █████ and ██████ to ███████ on it?
Don't ████ ████ ████████████ ████ me and my █████ ████ ███████ ██████ to be mad at ████████. The 60-███████ ██████ was bad ██████.
I've censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet--a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: [Link]
8 comments:
This and the "indefinite detention" act scare me to death. It blows my mind that the political party who detests the idea of "big government" will champion an idea like this. Their idea of big gov must be different from mine because for me this is the ultimate expression of big government (the stripping of individual freedoms rights) and both potential laws are entirely unconstitutional in nature.
those very same people who push laws like this are also the ones trying to take away our protections and fundamental services by trying to squash social programs, the EPA, the Department of Education and our investment into infrastructure. They call that big government-- I call that, and the taxes associated with it, investment toward building a strong nation.
sorry to rant on politics here Tony, but when Super-Grover Norquist and others say they want to shrink government to the size that it could be drown in a bathtub, and then they try to put laws like these into place... I have to seriously wonder in what direction they are trying to take us and at what point they will think they finally have enough control.
If this law passes, the people should be outraged and every damn person who supported it should be voted out of office.
We have the worst congress that money can buy.
Thank you for the thoughtful comment - both of us are in the cross-hairs if this passes.
These bills have bipartisan support in Congress:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/sopa-internet-censorship-online-piracy-house-hearing_n_1098255.html
With Google, Yahoo, Twitter and Facebook all opposing this legislation, however, I doubt it will go anywhere. There's a saying in politics: You don't take on people who buy ink by the barrel. To that end, you don't take on social media -- 'cause you'll lose.
sure. corporatism is bipartisan. I get that. but regarding the power of social networking: didn't Goldman Sachs recently purchase a lot of stock in Twitter? I have heard that this might be the reason Occupy Wall Street has never trended on Twitter. It has been a few weeks since I read that so don't quote me on it... but since social networks become publicly traded once they are successful enough, you can expect to see their effect in matters such as these eventually diluted.
We have already seen this in Mainstream news and it has been getting more blatant every year for decades.
Congressmen are paid to vote left and they are paid to vote right. And for that rare Congressman who can't be bought, well, the lobbyists have figured out a way to lease those people.
I am very cynical about our government! The "60-minutes" stock scandal piece on how Congress people are immune to insider trading laws; (the same laws that sent Martha Stewart to jail), was the last straw. Congress people do not have to follow the laws that we do.
The "60 Minutes" piece illustrated that the chair of the banking committee actually profited when the market crashed because he and his committee were told the market would crash by the Federal Reserve Chief and The Secretary of the Treasury. They took on short positions and put options. You were and I would have gone to jail if we did that. Apparently Congress made a law making them immune to insider trading, a law that only protects them like they were royalty.
jaja.. too many censorship U!
Redaction done by Jean Wiel, attorney, on behalf of USA Swimming? The style is familiar.
Someone sent me a note, actually a legal document, stating she got fined again for pissing off the judge in the USA Swimming vs Jane Doe lawsuit.
Post a Comment