YES

any post by posters named SPUD/CORKY/CELISARY
OH hell just any from CANADA>.that will take care of most of the nuts.
HEY where is the clown anyway...someone must have shot the crazy bastard...

English textbooks available in the Reference Section.

No content should be censored. It should be up to the individual to determine if they think the material is objectionable.

Ban right wing sites and maybe, just maybe American citizens will actually inform themselves with facts.

Callers on C-SPAN are still repeating long debunked right wing talking points about HCR.

A lady just called into C-SPAN complaining about HCR using the same tired right wing talking points. She said she hadn't had insurance for 8 years. The host asked why. She said "I can't afford it". Duh.

Only if you yell... Fire in your keyboard !!

rwd

no

Bring back anon.petit.fi!!

Things like child porn and inciting hatred should be censored. They're no less a crime on the internet. But Google should tell China to go @#$% itself.

Unfortunately, the various countries have jurisdiction. We Americans find censorship repugnant, but most of the world's governments censor. Even Canada has "hate speech" censorship.
It reminds me of a sick feeling I got when I first walked across the bridge from Laredo into Nuevo Laredo. About midway I realized I was no longer protected by the Bill of Rights. It is a scary realization.

The only censorship should be the type that is against the law--like child porn.

In fact, --so to not offend or get a site that is unwanted from the porn industry--they should change all porn to .xxx from .com

That would make filters more reliable.

Unfortunately, the various countries have jurisdiction. We Americans find censorship repugnant, but most of the world's governments censor.

The other countries have jurisdiction, but that doesn't mean that we have to help them a damn bit. If country X wants to censor information, place the burden on that country's ISPs. Google (and other search engines/ hosting services) probably don't have servers on that country's soil.

Any person who values free exchange of information should give countries like China a big fat middle finger and tell them to do their own goddamn dirty work. Unfortunately, they won't do that because there is too much money to be made doing business in those countries.

Ban right wing sites and maybe, just maybe American citizens will actually inform themselves with facts.

Callers on C-SPAN are still repeating long debunked right wing talking points about HCR.

#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-20 03:29 PM | Reply | FlagDisingenuous because he isn't about free speech, only speech for himself.

Typical. But then, it is AU...no expectations of any true willingness for discourse. Hubris.

Ban right wing sites and maybe, just maybe American citizens will actually inform themselves with facts.

Uh huh.

These rightwing sites are far more factual regarding this debacle known as 'healthcare' reform than just about anything coming from a huge variety of left-leaning sources of 'information'.

Jeff-
What specific elements of the legislation (not the process) do you object to?

What specific elements of the legislation (not the process) do you object to?

Jesus.

Where do I begin?

First off, the process and the substance are married - the process is shitty because the substance is shitty.

I'll be honest - I am willing to substantively answer your question; I really am. However, my gut tells me that in doing so you will go into 'Cooper Mode' which has been your M.O. of late. As such, I hesitate to put forth the effort to only be rewarded with sanctimonious responses and bullshit accustations of my being racist for not blindly supporting any measure proposed by Obama.

How can I possibly know that you are actually curious this time, in lieu of being a douchebag?

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-22 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag

What a bullshit, pretentious reply. Just answer his question, drama queen.

Jeff-
I don't really care if you answer or not. I would think that if you had a good answer, I would have heard it by now.

No biggie.

What a bullshit, pretentious reply. Just answer his question, drama queen.

The answer will require numerous paragraphs at a minimum.

He has shown no interest of late of actually discussing anything on a serious level, so why in the hell should I waste my time with that many keystrokes to answer a question from someone who is not interested in hearing my answer?

You are challenged all of the time with questions and usually blow them off - look in the mirror before you accuse others of being "pretentious".

I would think that if you had a good answer, I would have heard it by now.

I have countless 'answers' on this subject if you care to peruse my userprofile. You may, undoubtedly disagree with those answers (and probably deem me a racist for not swallowing Obamacare hook, line and sinker...) but I put a lot of thought into them, for whatever degree my knuckle-dragging racist self is capable of transposing thought into written word.

re: The answer will require numerous paragraphs at a minimum.

Actually, all you have to do is state one substantive element of the legislation that you disagree with.

But as I said, it won't affect my day one way or the other.

Well, off to work I go. I'll try to check back in to see if anything but petulant posing or blanket bullshit comes in.