Slashdot Mirror
EU Pushes to Limit Internet Speech
minamar writes "CNN is reporting that at an international conference, the EU is urging the US and other nations to ban racist and 'hate' messages from the internet. The US seems to be resisting, but is this another step away from free speech and how could an international group possibly regulate message on the internet anyway?"
It's widely accepted that Germany and France can't handle free speech (see: Nazi regalia and the internet), why does this surprise anyone?
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
If you don't let people vent their anger on websites that no one will read, then they might go out and use violence to vent that anger.
A sticking point was whether the United States, which has championed nearly unfettered free speech, would line up with European countries that have banned racist or anti-Semitic speech in public.
The problem is once you ban racist speech in public, you immediately open the door for more laws that do nothing to actually curtail the problem, but rather limit the rights and freedoms of everyone. Once you do that, it just opens the door for large powerful bodies of people (governments, corporations, SIG's) to pass more laws to limit more rights and freedoms.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I know it's unpopular, but it's true.
Free speech applies to everybody, and that includes neo-Nazis and racists. I am in no way supporting neo-Nazis and racists, but they still have the right to disseminate things and the right to free speech no matter how stupid their thinking is.
Censorship of any kind is just the start of a slippery slope.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
I think you suck. Everyone who looks like you sucks.
Will you now censor me?
To be sure...'hate speech' sucks. Sucks big, raw, donkey balls. But in the search for freedom of speech, you gotta take the bad with the good.
Do they really think they can fix hatred by telling people they shouldn't talk about it on the internet?
There are signs that online hate is getting worse.
Perhaps the online expression of it. The hate itself was always there and will only be minimized/eradicated with gradual cultural shifts on a global scale that will take centuries, if not millennia.
The coolest voice ever.
That simply not letting some one say something racist in a public forum will make racism magically go away.
I for one do NOT welcome our thought police overlords
It amazes me how we can revolt against something so much, we push ourselves away from it so strongly, that that we end up meeting it on the other side.
500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... How much simpler could it be?
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it.
"We are the first generation to influence the climate and the last generation to escape the consequences." - John McCain
"Hate" is in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective. What one person calls "Hate", another does not call "Hate."
Start limiting speech now and light your cigar from the flame of the United States Constitution.
Just the thought of censorship makes me cringe. Now you know why I dislike the FCC.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Most judges and congressmen don't get past "Congress shall make."
Who decides what "hate speech" is, these "international experts"? With free speech you have to take the good with the bad. Education is the key here!
Not that these guys have any authority anyway...
Racists suck because they spread hate. And hate ladies and gentlemen, breeds ignorance. Too bad the US government can't be trusted to censor hate groups...
Does Eurpoe really have that much guilt over its wretched past? It's OK guys, all our fore-fathers have made mistakes. Banning speech, which is only that, speech, is a ridiculas, unthought-out, pointless idea. Let the racists and biggots publicaly make a fool of themselves so we know who not to associate with. If this does go through though, does this mean that Europeons can no longer write about their hatered for Americans or Stupid White Males?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Like everytime a censorship issue is brought up, the question becomes:
1, Where does the censorship end,
2. who decides what should be censored?
3. What should be the punishment?
We should learn by example, as the article states, that we cannot even regulate shared music online without filing nonsensical lawsuits again John-Does.What are we going to do, file lawsuits against constant violators in other countries?
Relax everyone this is just another attempt to draw a line through the little line
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It will never happen in my life time.
Or it might be time to change governments
Like maybe those "hateful" communists. Or was it the "hateful" capitalists? Let's not forget those "hate-filled" Christians. And, gee, how often do I hear Rush Limbaugh referred to as "hate radio"?
Face it, as much as we might like to think that there is an objective assessment as to what qualifies as hate speech; the truth is that any hate speech laws will eventually be used to protect ideas and prosecute dissenters. These laws are not designed to protect people--the laws on the book already do that. These laws are designed to regulate thought, and it positively ignorant to believe that someday someone will not think that they can "help" society be eliminating that harmful capitalist/communist/whatever branch of thought.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
I'm glad to be on the other side of the Atlantic, the land of the Free...
Land of the free? Where large organizations can buy laws such as the DMCA. Where people are arrested for lecturing on cryptography? Where distributing a 7-line perl code can land you in jail?
(see subject)
This kind of shit just amazes me.
The whole point of freedom of speech is so that one isn't persecuted for UNPOPULAR ideas.
This stuff just makes me sick. It's never going to be illegal to say "I like pretty flowers." The whole reason we have freedom of speech it to protect ideas that others disagree with.
The government has no business regulating people's thoughts.
This type of law is a great example of the "harm principle" not being applied. I should be able to hate you. That's my right. What I shouldn't be able to do is gas a bunch of jews. That's infringing on the rights of others.
Laws like this are the first step towards yet another totalitarian, nazi-like regieme. First you put the goverment in charge of what is and is not acceptible public discourse. Next, the government abuses that power in ways you never imagined.
Life is too short to proofread.
You can't call for killing somebody.
You can't state knowingly wrong "fact" about a presidential candidate without being sued.
You can'd say everything you want on product review pages without risking being sued by the producer (for the negative review).
In Germany you can't say "The Holocaust did not happen".
It's absolutely justified banning public statements like "All jews should be gased" or "All blacks should be hung" or "Our race should be cleansed".
It would, however, be harmful to ban statements like "Based on emperical evidence, *** tend to *** and are more likely to ***".
And you see, I had to leave blanks, because the obsession with political correctness in this country, to the point to of just denying/ignoring fact.
Very good point about that balance...
"Your right to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose" -- I don't know who said that, other than my father, but I think it applies.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
A was using this as an argument against censoring the internet, but I guess it's only a matter of time before it becomes a reality on voice lines too.
I'm sorry, but this is +4 Insightful despite your not giving any links to back it up? Until you give examples (google turns up comments/reviews/upgrades, no databases per se) your comment's quite possibly yet more trolling.
Stuff.
I think you're equating the federalism of the US with the quasi-confederalism of the EU. There are far too many key distinctions between the two models to justify your statement. The design of the EU's government and parliament, the rotating presidency, and the fierce nationalism that still pervades much of continental Europe really prevents the kind of powerful central government from emerging the way it did here in the United States. Unless some demagogue comes to the EU presidency and makes some substantial changes to the design of the EU government, the most power the EU will wield will be economic power, and even there such reach will be governed by the WTO.
I doubt you'll see a U-turn on this issue, primarily because of the fundamentally different outlook on government and rights between the two continents. For Americans, rights really are important, even though everyone who says "I'm defending the Bill of Rights!" tends to defend only their favorite few (i.e., the 1st for the lefties, the 2nd and 4th for the righties). Europeans still have an essentially monarchistic view of government's relations to its citizens: citizens are subjects of the government, and all rights they enjoy, they do so at the government's pleasure. Thus stopping people from saying bad things doesn't get people as uppity there as it does here. It's the same reason gun control is not as much of a hot topic as in the US.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
Perhaps Chirac realized (correctly) that a man's funeral should not be used to improve one's political position or as an international diplomatic event.
If Chirac had no strong connections to Mr Reagan it would have been inappropriate for him to attend the funeral and act like he was the man's bestest buddy.
I personally feel that beaming the images of a wife grieving for her late husband into living rooms around the world was far more tasteless than Chirac not attending the funeral... but thats me.
What constitues rasist remarks and hate messages? Does changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries constitue rasism or hate messages when it is posted on the internet? Does me saying French people smell here on slashdot constitue hate messages?
The EU is going to have a very tough time enfocing this since most people on the internet now use Google, and Google is a US based company. And since the first ammendment still exists in the US, and is not going to go away in the forseeable future, this kind of censoring will never happen. For your convience:
Amendment I (1791) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I mean its all fascinating and shit that the ninny nannies of Brussels want to curb hatespeech - but let's face facts - they don't consider antisemitism to even be hate speech.
For christ's sake, people, get over it, leave your neighbours alone, and get on with living your life in your own little community and you'll be happier for it.
^ That's the fucking truth.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
The German regulation on "free speech" is essentially: it is forbidden to lie about the Holocaust, i.e., to deny the murder of millions of jews by the Nazis. In my view (and probably in the view of most Germans) this restriction is necessary in order to retain the memory of what happened and to prevent that it can happen again; furthermore, it is the least we can do for survivors and the families of victims. It is nothing to look down upon, in particular not for Americans.
To begin with, that wasn't just any old man's funeral. That was a funeral for the former President of a country whom you are (suppossed) to be allied with. Attending a funeral is not going to improve anyone's political position, certainly not if they aren't invited to speak.
Imagine how the French or Germans would feel if President Bush was invited to attend a funeral for one of their great leaders, when he was already on European soil, and had no great matters to attend to. Hell, we're at war and President Bush attended the funeral. It took him away from things for pretty much the entire day I'm sure. I doubt it would have seriously inconveinced any of them to stay.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world, may be seen by some cynics as a way to improve your social or political standing, but that the feelings of such cynics should not stop you from doing what is simply the right thing.
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
-
"We were very disturbed by Scott Simon's question to interviewee Richard Ben Cramer (June 12, 2004 "Weekend Edition"): "is there still a need for Israel to exist?" "
-
They're unhappy about Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ.
-
They're unhappy about The Financial Times publishing a letter by the Ambassador from one of the Arab League countries.
-
They're unhappy about the United Nations Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. They think it's too one-sided.
None of this stuff is hate speech. These are political statements.This issue tends to be framed in terms of "Nazis", but the Nazis died out a long time ago. Today's issues revolve around Israel vs. its Arab neighbors, Israel vs. its Palestinian population, and US support of Israel. The ADL has a major cow whenever the anti-Israel side of those issues gets major press in the US. (Interestingly, the domestic Israeli press criticizes the government of Israel over these issues frequently, but the ADL doesn't get mad at the Jerusalem Post.)
There's a real political question as to whether continued support of Israel is in the interest of the United States. It's important to Israel's survival to divert serious poliical debate on that issue. That's the real meaning of this "anti-hate-speech" push. It's not about Nazis.
Attending a funeral is not going to improve anyone's political position
Yet you assume that Chirac not attending the funeral was him "Sending message that he didnt like the united states". In any case, perhaps he doesnt, and would be within his rights not to. His descion to attend a man's funeral should be based on his relationship with the man not the state.
Hell, we're at war and President Bush attended the funeral.
I do hope you are kidding! You are at war and your president takes time off to play golf and go on holiday.
Seems!? Are you kidding me? The United States government doesn't have a choice. Our Constitution doesn't allow them to limit hate speech. The slippery slope becomes a cliff far too quickly. First you let the government ban hate speech, then you redefine hate speech to "anything that disagrees with the P.C. stance."
Far fetched? Not a bit. It's been done. A kid in a school said, "I think homosexuals are going to hell," during a classroom discussion. He was expelled for hate speech. While I disagree with his beliefs, I wouldn't call it hate speech, but the school did.
The U.S. government can NOT ban hate speech. They can arrest people for "inciting to riot" or a host of other criminal offenses related to speech, but they they can't impose a blanket ban.
Europe needs to realize that, unlike them, we take our Constitution dead serious and don't allow compromise.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I happen to think they're wrong, but when it comes to the danger of racist demagoguery, they have a very direct and painful perspective on the matter that you don't appreciate.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Ever heard of 'Free speech zones?' If anyone can't handle free speech, it's your president.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Just a short 40 years ago, blacks couldn;t even use the same water fountain.
Let's not complacent, we still have a long way to go.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that paying respect for the dead, particularly of a man who had a great and positive effect on the entire world...
First of all, that's a load of crap for any number of reasons. Here's a quick bulleted list to get the fact that Reagan was a raving psychopath and a flat out asshole out of the way:
Whether or not Reagan actually played any heavy role in the downfall of communism - an already failing system in many places - is extremely debateable.
That said, maybe Chirac wouldn't have snubbed us if Bush hadn't thumbed his nose at the entire world, turned his back, and marched off beating his own drum. Funny how that works, isn't it? People don't take real kindly to being insulted like that - especially when they're on the soil of a nation that has, for the last 50 years, made cruel sport of the person's nationality for no particularly good reason. It's called international diplomacy, and our current president has failed miserably at it. Now, you people are surprised that the rest of the world bites its thumb at us? Cripes.. pull your heads out of your own asses before you suffocate... you only get respect if you earn it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
1. Everyone gets the same thing. The entire human race is then achored by its dumbest and laziest members. "To each according to his needs" has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried, though.
2. Change human nature. Good luck there.
Unfortunately, people will always envy those that have more money, fuck prettier women, live in bigger houses, and so on. And people will always want more money, bigger houses, or prettier girlfriends/better-looking boyfriends. If that weren't the case, we'd still be living in caves drawing pictures of antelopes and three-fingered hands on the walls.
The Nazis gave us a warning from history about the potentially lethal power of the spoken word. one of the most technically advanced and civilised nations on Earth was whipped into a frenzy of mass hysteria by the power of words. The holocaust should never have happened, it should never be forgotten, and it must never happen again.
The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be. There are more pressing rights such as the right to life. Where one conflicts with the other, it is the right to life that must prevail.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The reason why socialism will NEVER truly work (based in its true form) is due to human nature. As a species, Humans have evolved their brains through survival of the fittest. That is, only the strong survived and carried on their genetics to future generation. And thus, to this day the Human species continues to envy, hate, and extort those in the process to better suit them selves in hope of successfully procreating with the fairest of females. Ever wonder why society revolves around sex in some way or fashion? Basically, this is evolutionary psychology. It's a both a fascinating and sobering subject about our true nature. We are after all, animals. Some are just more civilized then others depending on who you talk to.
As stated before, socialism will never work because it leaves a vacuum of power and thus is a perfect breading ground for corruption (organized crime, mafias...etc). Prime examples are found in China and former Soviet Union.
Capitalism however works by going with human nature and exploiting it for all of society in a positive manor. Obviously, it's not perfect. But given Human nature, it's the best system available. I'm sure one day millions of years from now, socialism will work far better then capitalism will (that, or accelerated human brain modification through genetic engineering). But until then, just accept your race for which you are now a part of. Live it, love it, at the very least, and understand it.
Life is not for the lazy.
Freedom of expression is noble, pure, and good. Most people are not. Ergo, they neither want nor can abide by it.
Case in point: This semester, in my English class, my teacher presented, as a case in point, the story of a professor at a university in the southern US. My teacher presented this man's story as the basis of an expsoitroy essay I was to write, either supporting or denying the right to free speech. This professor wrote an article advocating child pornagraphy. As you can imagine, there was a public outcry, with the end result being that the state's legislature withheld the value of the professor's salary from the university's bugetary allocation for that year. The state legislature was sending the university a message. In my essay, I advocated the right of the professor to speek freely, without fear of pursecution, on whatever ideas he wished.
I received 99% for that essay. My English teacher also teaches my Ancient Civilization class. Somehow, in that class, we came to the topic of free speech (I think it was in relation to the limits the Romans put on their citizenry in terms of criticizing the state). I, again, advocated the right of free speech for all the obvious reasons. My teacher proceded, in front of the entire class, to proclaim that I "was that guy that advocated pedophilia". So, by advocating people's right to free speech, I became a pedophile advocate.
For the record and in no uncertain terms, I only ever advocated the right to free speech. My teacher, this lousy, disingenuous, malicious son of a bitch, a man who belives himself to be a "liberal", labelled me a pedophile advocate in front of the whole class. You know what? It stuck. People now think I believe in pedophilia. The question I have for those of you advocating limits to free speech is, are you like my teacher? My experience is, you probably are. I have found that, generally, those that would like to limit speech are usually the first ones to use it to control, abuse or malign others. Just so you know, you are a known quantity. People like you are known in this world. Your terrible, destructive mechanations are well undertood. IMHO, you are a scourge of the planet; indeed, it's people like *you* whose actions should be limited, not the other way around. That you are allowed to operate as you do, indeed, that you feel entitled to your behavior, is disturbing and troubling.
What scares me is that when people start to pass laws based on what they thing is hate. After all think about how different people think about what hate is.
For example:
Many Liberals call what conservatives say is hate speech. Would this then be banned on the internet? Or Radio? Or even from being mentioned in public?
If so, welcome to Germany 1939.
No, Muslim women aren't required by their religion to wear a headscarf: that's a fallacy.
Show me where it says that in the Koran and I'll stand corrected. But it's not in the Koran, so I don't think there's any danger of me having to do that.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Socialism and stifling free speech go hand in hand.
You seem to have missed out the part where you attempt to justify this sentence. Socialism and free speech are two completely different concepts that have no bearing on one another.
Free speech has been stifled by left-leaning governments, and right-leaning governments.
A more valid statement would be:
"Governments and stifling free speech go hand in hand."
The world needs far less 'logical objections' and a severe reduction in US population.
Funny thing is, what you wrote could be considered hate speech, and therefore not allowed.
Fellowship 9/11
The problem is once you ban racist speech in public, you immediately open the door for more laws that do nothing to actually curtail the problem, but rather limit the rights and freedoms of everyone.
That door has already been opened in the US: you may be able to defame minority groups, but you can't defame beef, milk, or trademarks. Likewise, you face restrictions on other kinds of speech: there are limits on the copyrighted content you can include in your speech, and as the Scientologists show, those can be made to stick. There are limits on how you can use trademarks in US speech. Etc.
No, what rankles people like you about these kinds of laws is that they are foreign restrictions on US speech. But every nation has restrictions on speech, every nation tries to export their restrictions, and every nation is successful to some degree at that.
Freedom is expensive, but it's something worth fighting and dying for.
Terrorists believe they are dying for freedom, and you can see what US attitudes towards terrorists are--people who blow things up and fight the US government. Face it: fighting and dying for freedoms is neither acceptable nor effective anymore, and it is becoming less so.
That would be a magnanimous sentiment if you were actually the victim of hate speech.
I don't give a rats ass about being the "victim of speech" from some schmuck. However if I am a victim of an actual non-speech crime then throw the fscker in prison.
But by your likely economic status alone, chances are that you aren't, even if you are Jewish or homosexual or a member of another minority that is the target of hate speech.
I dunno about the original poster, but I qualify.
When you add up jews and homosexuals and blacks and muslims and asians and latinos and native americans and whoever else, it's damn near 50% of the US population. Several US states are substantially over 50% "minority".
I'll stick with the Stormfront.org assholes who get thrown in prison if/when they pull out a gun. They are much prefferable to government assholes pulling out guns and throwing people in prison because they don't like what someone says.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This is kinda like yelling 'weapons of mass destruction' when they dont exist.
and we could count the 9/11 attacks as the largest hate crime of all time.
On the grand scale, 9/11 was a small isolated incident. If you want to see large hate crimes, go read the history books regarding events of world war 2. Even recent history contains many examples of much greater magnitude than 9/11. Go read up on Bosnia and Somalia for just a couple recent examples. As much as americans want to believe 9/11 changed the world, and is justification for wars and invasions, it was truely a small isolated incident on the overall scale of this world.
The hypocracy of americans trying rationalize the slanted views never ceases to amaze me. If China throws a few 'inusurgents' in jail for political reasons, it's a 'violation of human rights'. If america throws a few into a jail in cuba with no trials, and no rights to defend against accusations, thats 'for the good of the people'. The amazing part is, americans cant see the hypocracy of it, and they actually believe the drivel from the politicians about 'well, this is different, human rights dont apply when its us doing the afflicting'.
Americans talking about 'rights and freedoms' these days is just a laff for the rest of the world. Go take a look at any newscast from the last couple of months. America has demonstrated clearly how they view human rights. USA doesn't have to take second place to any third world dictatorship when it comes to invading another country, setting up jails for political prisoners, or establishing systematic torture treatment for political prisoners. GW wanted to show the world that he's as good as the best of them at running the show, and he's proved it. He doesn't have to take a second seat to Saddam for anything, quite capable of matching all the deeds. Now the rest of the world just isn't paying attention to any of the 'rights and freedoms' drivel coming forth from america anymore. It's cheap talk for the press, not something to actually practise.
I'm sure I'll get modded troll into oblivion for this, but wtf, I've got karma to burn, and if it opens the eyes of a single american voter, it's worth it. To be taken seriously on the world stage, you have to practise what you preach. Until a couple years ago, usa was given credit for doing just that, but not anymore. Anybody willing to step back and look at facts, ignoring the political spin, can see it pretty plainly. If americans truely believe in 'rights and freedoms', regime change is in order. Luckily, they have the mechanism to do it legally. Time will tell, we will find out in November if they truely believe in rights and freedoms, or if they they approve of the new role of oppressive invader with total disregard for even the most basic of human rights.
As a former american citizen now living in germany I have to say I don't like the attitude the way US people think their 'free-speech' is the only 'free-speech' in the world and that germany and other countries trying to 'limit free speech' are somewhat 'unfree'.
While I agree on that it's not an easy issue, it should be taken into account that speech is just about as free in germany and other western countries as it is in the US. Somebody like Kaplan for instance - a large type islam-fundamentalistic asshole - who has cause serious trouble in germany with so-called 'hate speech' and simular things can still walk around rather unhindred in germany, where as in the o-so-free-speech US they would've locked him away already for some dubious one-size-fits-all terrorist threat possibility charges or whatnot. Try to say 'f*ck' 'sh*t' and 'motherf*cker' on TV or even on slashdot and see how far you can get. How's that for free-speech? It's all got quite some US bias, this discussion.
This whole free speech issue is just a problem because some people in the US insist on officially threatening and insulting other people and call 'constitution!' whenever someone wants to get them for it. And even judges limit free speech in the US when it comes so far as what the germans call 'Volksverhetzung'. If I were to stand up and officially ask for the public to storm the white house and take down the goverment or fly some planes into public buildings the US authorities would take me in, free speech or not. Just like they would in germany. And for good reasons to.
As you see, the differences aren't that big as one may think.
So to those bias-ridden comentators here: Just quit the rubbish your blowing out of your behind about the 'rest of the world' as opposed to the o-so-free US. It's not all that differenta situation alltogether.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Does their definition of hate speech include the Bible, which demands that homosexuals be put to death? (Leviticus 20:13)
You may be trolling, but some things are too important to be denied unchallenged.
There is no such thing as unlimited free speech. Not in the EU, not in the US.
There are a lot of good reasons to stop "some" speech.
Consider:
- "Hi, Im William H. Vanderbilt, could I get a free ride on this here staten ilse ferry?" (I am not William H. Vanderbilt)
- "Fuck you cop"
- "Ill shoot you dead"
Three easy examples of were speech is limited.
Is it a good thing to ban "hate" speech? Hell, I dont know, define "hate"
"/Dread"
I agree with most of what you say, but the part about dubbya not having to take a back seat to Saddam on anything is a bit overblown. Last I checked there weren't any mass graves filled with turkish insurgents on GWB's resume. And as much as systematically destroying everyone's rights is an atrocity on it's own, he still hasn't managed to rape / torture / murder his way to anywhere near the numbers that Hussein has under his belt.
do not read this line twice.
I tried to read your post, but all I could get out of it was:
I hate America. I hate Reagan. I hate Bush.
Europe good, America bad.
*sigh* You're a walking, talking cliche and you don't even know it. Programmed to spew out someone else's thoughts.
I'm no Republican conservative, so save your ad hominems, but here's a suggestion...go study what Reagan actually did for the economy and for the destruction of communism. Study a mixture of the left wing rantings that you like so much, and some right wing glorification, and some *gasp* independent analysis. Factor in the good with the bad. If you do this honestly and dilligently, you will see what a true patriot, skilled statesman, and great overall president Reagan actually was.
p.s. Isn't it amusing that Reagan's hate-filled detractors stopped calling it "Reaganomics" when it began to turn the sour economy around?
Then you are not being a responsible parent.
Your job is to explain this world to them, not to shelter them from it. Nipples are unavoidable. Why not take the five minutes to explain what a nipple is, why it's been demonized, and that it will make a lot more sense when she's older. Wait a year, repeat.
It should be a wake up call that so many people are willing to have the government automate their parenting.
Parenting is a responsibility. Own up to it or your child will pass on the same dysfunctions
There should be a 'Stupid' Mod option