Slashdot Mirror


Senator Wants 'Terrorist' Label On Blogs

itwbennett writes "Terrorist suspect Jose Pimentel had a blog on Google-owned Blogger. And so it follows that Senator Joe Lieberman sent a letter to Google CEO Larry Page taking him to task because 'Blogger's Content Policy does not expressly ban terrorist content.' Lieberman also pointed out that YouTube does ban terrorist content and added that 'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"

370 comments

  1. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once Lieberman retires next year to be replaced by Linda McMahon, she'll put the smackdown on these terrorist jabronies.

    1. Re:Don't worry by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Once Lieberman retires next year to be replaced by Linda McMahon, she'll put the smackdown on these terrorist jabronies.

      Uh huh. Here's a better story:

      CITIZENS WANT TRAITOR LABEL ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

      "A group of irate citizens sent a letter to Senator Joe Lieberman taking him to task because Congressional policy does not expressly ban treasonous, corrupt or inept behavior. The letter also pointed out that other countries do ban such activities, and that Congress' inconsistent, arrogant and frequently ignorant behavior is adversely affecting our ability to survive and maintain what is left of our standard of living, our freedoms, indeed our very future"

      Hypocrites, all of them.

      Let Congress clean its own house before it starts pointing any more goddamn fingers. I'm tired of these sanctimonious pricks decrying others for not doing their part, when in fact it is Congress who put is in a situation where terrorism is an issue. Face it, it was Congressional dealmaking and corporate collusion over several decades that made us a target in the first place.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So if we ban public content that indicates terrorism and force them to hide it better from the government, how would that be better at countering terrorism? At least if it's public everyone can see it and so can the government, which would enable them to do something about it, rather than being unprepared.

    1. Re:Yea... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      My understanding is that, by simultaneously encouraging potentially dangerous types to brush up on their secrecy skills, and by making a transparent mockery of Enlightenment Humanism's commitment to freedom of speech and expression, a censorship system clearly weakens both those interested in clandestine attacks on us, and those who argue that our civilization is immoral, corrupt, and decadent.

      I'm assuming that it all makes perfect sense, if you squint hard enough...

    2. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why Thomas Jefferson sung it on the cross.

    3. Re:Yea... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Out of sight, out of mind?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Yea... by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lieberman has never amounted to anything more than a "flag politician" - one that flaps uselessly in whatever political winds are blowing for the day. The problem is that the unconstitutional committee seniority system in the Senate combined with the bacon he brings back to his campaign financiers (note, I didn't say voting constituents) means he'll never get replaced - you have to wait until he retires. The same is true of Pelosi, Frank, Boehner, and McConnell. They're all useless career politicians who care nothing about you, me, or anything other than their next election campaign. DOWN WITH THE CAREER POLITICIAN. SUPPORT CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    5. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand. There is a real possibility that Google may retaliate by banning The Congressional Record from iTunes.

      Then where would Fox News viewers be ...

    6. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming that it all makes perfect sense, if you squint hard enough...

      Whats with the satire? I was a Liberal Arts Major and it made complete sense - you insensitive clod!

    7. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech does have its limits. But so far our Supreme Court has not determined that this type of speech is prohibited. Leave the First Amendment Alone. That is why it is the First Amendment. It is the most important.

    8. Re:Yea... by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Nope, that's not what the government wants. What they want is actually to not allow you to THINK at all, whether the terrorist is terrorist, or just some crazy guy, or god forbid it, some actually smart guy, raising valid and meaningful questions, which only fault is that they are somehow screwing their nice and little castle at beach, and golden parachute, and 100k pension plan, and......

    9. Re:Yea... by qualityassurancedept · · Score: 1

      I would think the NSA/FBI/CIA tracks visitors to every site they consider terrorist related anyway. Once you have gone online and proclaimed your terrorist allegiance then you would never be able to actually be a terrorist at all because the government would be able to track you and your entire social network by means of your online activity. In short, if you really are interested in becoming a terrorist, you would be a moron if you ever used a computer and the internet to learn more about it.

      --
      if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
    10. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, take the power out of the elected officials and put it 100% into the hands of lobbyists!

      That's what term limits do. It makes conditions ripe for machine politics. It's better to have crappy incumbents with name recognition than 50 interchangeable alderman that all come from the same political machine.

    11. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have term limits - it's called the ballot box and their constituents are the ones charged with enforcing them.

      Unless you're claiming that their "campaign financiers" are rigging the elections then blame the voters.

    12. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be the same Joe Leiberman who is the Senator for Microsoft?

    13. Re:Yea... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      There's no government bill so no rights are being taken away here, the senator is just exercising HIS free speech right to make a himself look impotent and foolish. However I don't think politicians are stupid so it's probably safe to assume he sees a potential reward for embarrassing himself, my bet is he's trying to impress a potential sponsor who has asked him to "raise the issue".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Yea... by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      What control does Google have over iTunes? Then again, they could always just issue a DMCA Takedown, that would be like double payback!

    15. Re:Yea... by rsborg · · Score: 1

      They're all useless career politicians who care nothing about you, me, or anything other than their next election campaign. DOWN WITH THE CAREER POLITICIAN. SUPPORT CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS.

      You think term limits will really influence the flow of money in politics? What this will mean is that other political career jobs (i.e., senator's chief of staff) will now be the influence peddlers (they already are to a large extent). The bribery and money flow into political offices needs to be monitored and controlled, or as it stands, money > speech.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    16. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly the point i was going to make...

    17. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a perfectly functional system of congressional term limits. It's called voting!

    18. Re:Yea... by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Yup, I think I have to agree with this. Banning it from "legit" hosting services will just drive it underground, where it will be more difficult to spot. In this case, the suspect had even purchased a custom domain name for his blog, the registration of which could probably have been traced back to him.

      Why would we want to discourage potential terrorists from doing stuff that makes them easier to identify?

    19. Re:Yea... by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

      Seems more like another form of Security Theater to me. "Yes, we're doing everything we can to prevent terrorism, honest! Look -- we got Google to kick all those horrible terrorist sites off of their servers!"

    20. Re:Yea... by oh2 · · Score: 1

      And you find nothing wrong with government agencies tracking visitors to sites THEY consider terrorist ? It been shown quite clearly that in most parts of the world its a quite convenient excuse for surveillance. Just break out the big fat rubber stamp labeled "Terrorist leanings" and use it on your political enemies or assorted dissidents. The US showed the world how to do it and the rest followed suit. Good work!

      --

      Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

    21. Re:Yea... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Actually the dishonourable senator wants to tag all terrorist suspects, you know that list of names on the watch list tens of thousands of them, they are all terrorist suspects. That list includes peace protesters, environmentalists, unionists, pretty much anybody else that protests against government corruption and especially those that don't continue to support Jewish Palestinians theft of land from Muslim Palestinians.

      The only real terrorist actions going on at the moment is Israeli terrorism of the US treasury via corrupted politicians, giving them money and fighting their religious wars, what a bunch of schmucks.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:Yea... by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      you need to get rid of the "seniority system " not term limits

    23. Re:Yea... by adamanthaea · · Score: 1

      He's gone in 2012. Seriously, he's retiring. Almost manged to get rid of him in 2006.

    24. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      term limits are stupid. What if we finally find a good politician?

    25. Re:Yea... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's like the anti-child porn campaign in Germany. Keep cp from being accessible, presto no child abuse anymore!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Yea... by qualityassurancedept · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's right that they track online activity but at the same time I feel pretty confident they track quite a bit more activity than just that which they consider terrorist.... and it's not like this is new at all. The FBI under J Edgar Hoover notoriously had files on thousands of americans that they considered to be subversives who had actually never committed any crime. I wouldn't be surprised if they track a lot of online activity in order to steal industrial secrets from foreign companies. At least american citizens have a some legal protections at the constitutional level. But the CIA/NSA can do what ever it wants on the internet to non-americans and I am sure it does.

      --
      if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
    27. Re:Yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech has limitations. Among those are the holler "Fire" in a crowded theater, while others are inciting to riot, and calling for the violent overthrow of the government. Hence for many years it was illegal to belong to the communist party or speak in favor of them. The speech of these terrorist organizations are also prohibited on US soil as they call for the violent overthrow of the US. Unfortunately the Union bosses are protected by law even if they lead their workers into a riot which is far beyond free speech.

    28. Re:Yea... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Why would we want to discourage potential terrorists from doing stuff that makes them easier to identify?

      Garnering political capital, which has nothing to do with being practical.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  3. Hey, guess what! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've heard that the Content Policy of the United States Constitution also fails to expressly ban terrorist content...

    Those 'founding fathers' must have been a bunch of rag-heads or something.

    1. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the rare moments I wished I had moderator points, I don't have any.

    2. Re:Hey, guess what! by IICV · · Score: 5, Informative

      In fact, the official content policy of the United States expressly allows things that could be considered terroristic, or even things that advocate Islamist extremism.

    3. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

    4. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe they have better understanding than you give them credit for...

    5. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Duh, they were terrorists and traitors to the crown!

    6. Re:Hey, guess what! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Informative

      American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

      I don't think American Revolutionaries fit the traditionally, pre-9/11-label-everything-as-terrorism definition of terrorism. AFAIK, the American Revolutionaries made no attempt to induce mortal fear (i.e., terror) into the general British population.

    7. Re:Hey, guess what! by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      They know their history perfectly well they get a statement for their bank accounts every month.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    8. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey Joe,
      I propose another content tag, "Dumbass Motherfucker" or "Ignorant AssLicker" on all congressional and senatorial sites. Oh how we have changed society, it used to be people got wiser as they got older, seems now they get mo' ign'ant.

    9. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mel Gibson put the fear in those fuckers. I saw the documentary. They called him The Ghost.

    10. Re:Hey, guess what! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why does the US Constitution matter for the Senator R/D- from Israel?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    11. Re:Hey, guess what! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      How about "Fascist".

      That's a tag they all wear.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    12. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen. Americans also spread propaganda in London and other cities to try to change public opinion (while I don't consider this terrorism, it falls under what we label as "terrorism" today).

    13. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two kinds of people who still care about the American revolutionaries:
      1) Historians
      2) Those who appeal to the revolutionaries as an authority in order to manipulate modern policy decisions.

    14. Re:Hey, guess what! by MagikSlinger · · Score: 5, Informative

      They also terrorized Loyalists, which is why most of them fled to Canada.

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    15. Re:Hey, guess what! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

    16. Re:Hey, guess what! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure they understand history well. But I guess they found out that they're in the boots of the Brits.

      Or was that in the boots of Louis XVI?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Hey, guess what! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm pretty sure they still get wiser. I just doubt that they use the wisdom for the good of the many anymore.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Hey, guess what! by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

      If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    19. Re:Hey, guess what! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The official content policy of the US of A starts with "Congress shall make no law".

      It doesn't say "Corporations shall may no policy..."

    20. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen.

      You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.

      You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    21. Re:Hey, guess what! by hosecoat · · Score: 1

      Citizens Want 'Crackpot' Label On Politicians

    22. Re:Hey, guess what! by dragonjujotu · · Score: 1

      Agreed, when any of these events is left to its own merits, it can easily be labeled as a terrorist act. However in context, they were coordinated (to some degree) to enable the Continental Army to succeed in overthrowing British rule in the colonies. Our own military used a coordinated barrage against Baghdad widely televised as "Shock and Awe". Counted on its own merits, it was large scale terrorism.

      Disclaimer: I am a Navy veteran

      --
      Yes, I am obsessed with ellipses.
    23. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 3

      Well of course not. The definition of terrorism is to instill fear in the general population. Bombing a British military supply depot would not be terrorism. But bombing public docks and scaring loyalists was most certainly meant to intimidate the public.

    24. Re:Hey, guess what! by zill · · Score: 2

      So if Congress disbanded all the law enforcement agencies in the country and incorporated Cops Inc, FBI LLC, and DHS Corp they can enact whatever "corporate policy" they want then?

    25. Re:Hey, guess what! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

      If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      Do you really see the WTC as an attack on industrial infrastructure? That makes little or no sense to me. Attacking whatever Raytheon factory makes Tomahawk missiles would qualify in my mind as an industrial attack to take out a capability related to our wars in that region, but the WTC?

      I guess it could be seen as an attack on our overall economy, because of the massive ripple effect it had. But even an attack on the economy doesn't seem like terrorism to me, because its goal is to effect change by damaging our capabilities, rather than effecting change by making us fear for our lives.

    26. Re:Hey, guess what! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Your point sounds reasonable.

    27. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 2

      Ben Franklin himself spread propaganda in London that today we'd consider terrorism. You'll need to read up on attacks aimed at citizens, particularly loyalists, to understand more of what I'm talking about.

    28. Re:Hey, guess what! by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      If only that were a plain old "corporate policy..." The very act of government coercing google with their "letter" nullifies the freedom of "it's their sandbox" regarding their own stance on what is or is not allowed on their blogger hosting site. Having said that, is there a public forum anywhere on the internet that can be 1st Amendment friendly and not subject to the whims of "this isn't a public square"?

      If there isn't one, we need one. And not one granted by the "benevolence" of Corporate PR...

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    29. Re:Hey, guess what! by Jibekn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you think they want to privatize everything? Its not about money.

    30. Re:Hey, guess what! by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 1

      You mean you haven't seen this taking place over the last couple decades?

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    31. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then 9/11 was not an act of terrorism, since the World Trade Center is not just any civilian target, but a focal point of business and finance. It was a "dock" for the deadliest munition of all: money

    32. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The WTC attack was to spread terror.

      Worked, didn't it? The american populace is scared shitless of terrorists, and it's trashed the economy in the process.

      I keep saying the terrorists won years and years ago, but somehow the general consensus would disagree.

    33. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military.

      Sounds more like good guerrilla warfare than terrorism to me. If the supply lines of your much larger enemy have a chokepoint (as it was during the Revolutionary War; the enemy depended on naval transport for everything) that's exactly what you want to target, mainly for the material and personnel effect (the latter assuming most of the people working in the shipyard accepting British transport were on the side of the enemy). Psychological effects at most are a tertiary bonus, if you were lucky...blowing up a dock in the Revolutionary War would be a really inefficient way to instill enough fear in the public of Great Britain to change public support of a war.

      Modern examples of the difference:
      Terrorism: Flying jetliners into buildings in a way sure to get good media coverage and keeping the threat of the possibility of it happening again ambiguous.
      Guerrilla tactics: Attacking supply lines of your enemy in Afghanistan, rather then wasting your personnel in a head-on attacks against a much stronger enemy.

      Guerrilla warfare != Terrorism

    34. Re:Hey, guess what! by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up but I'm out of points.

      bjd

    35. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember the other targets of that day: Pentagon and (supposedly) White House.

      World Trade Center itself was a major hub for finance

      I would call these "command" infrastructure. They may not be "industrial" infrastructures actually making the bombs, but they are still important in the system, even if only symbolically

      Think of it as attacking a police station. I mean, that's not where guns or police cars are made or anything.

    36. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and people in Afghanistan and Iraq look at Americans as terrorists, it's all a matter of perspective. I'm mean seiously what would fill you with more terror, a M1A1 or the possibility of a supposed terrorist attack. Remeber both which have occured in America were allowed to happen, except when the Canadians burnt down the White House.

    37. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Ben Franklin himself spread propaganda in London that today we'd consider terrorism.

      Ben Franklin was a master of propaganda. Please give an example of his propaganda that rises to the level of what we'd consider terrorism.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    38. Re:Hey, guess what! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Mr. Liberty? As in USS Liberty? Cheers!

      No mods? Why not donate to the victim's fund instead? This economy is really putting the hurt on some of us: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/22yachts.html?_r=2&hp

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    39. Re:Hey, guess what! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Some of the treatment of Loyalists certainly comes pretty close. The Loyalists didn't move to Canada just for a change of scenery.

      I would consider what happened to John Malcolm (twice) to cross the line into a blatant act of terrorism to intimidate him other Loyalists.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    40. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, now, you have to interpret that based on what the Founders really intended. And just as when they said "free exercise of religion" they clearly meant "you can believe anything you like as long as you believe in Jesus", when they said "no laws abridging the freedom of speech" they meant "you can say what you like as long as it doesn't threaten the government or entrenched corporate interests, oh, and this 'copyright' thing is really supposed to last forever so what you can say without being sued for infringing it will gradually shrink too".

      It's right there in the text. Just point your eyes between the lines and squint real hard.

    41. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

      The primary difference between revolutionaries and terrorists is whether they won or lost.

    42. Re:Hey, guess what! by bentcd · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia has, among other things, this to say about the attack on the USS Cole:
      "President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Some critics have pointed out that, under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism[32] (see: 22 USC para 2656f(d)(2))."

      So you are right in what you say, and political leaders tend to hate every single bit of that.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    43. Re:Hey, guess what! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

      If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      Maybe if you can just take out infrastructure without hurting or endangering anyone you have a point. As soon as you do either of these things though you stray so far away from acceptable behaviour that causing terror is a pretty good definition.

      By the way, I do also take this to the conclusion that police officers tear gassing peaceful protesters are also guilty of state sponsored and sanctioned terrorism. I would like to see them in the dock too, I would just give them a lesser sentence than someone who actually committed murder.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    44. Re:Hey, guess what! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That's nonsense.

      The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded.

      It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.

      A police station is no more of a valid military target either.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    45. Re:Hey, guess what! by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      I can't find any examples online at the moment. They were basically political caricatures that people at the time would consider extremely offensive. Of course, to say they'd be the equivalent of "terrorism" today is very subjective, but I think if they had YouTube back then they would have been taken down :)

    46. Re:Hey, guess what! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      A politician lied, imagine that?

      That's the problem here. We allow terms to be used with such impugnity that they become pretty much meaningless. It's not limited to politics of course. Advertisers love to do the same thing to language.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re:Hey, guess what! by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those revolutionaries authored the basis of all of our laws.

      They aren't just figments of history. Their legacy remains quite intact even to this day. In some ways they serve as a cautionary example of where certain sorts of slippery slopes lead.

      That is why the whole revolution happened to begin with.

      People will only take so much before they tar and feather the tax man and parade him through the street.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    48. Re:Hey, guess what! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen.

      You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.

      You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.

      Actually most countries count terrorism to be just causing terror, they do not care if that was only aimed at people in the military. Not sure about US law but here in the UK you can be guilty of terrorism even if you only endangered members of our armed forces.

      I think that the american founding fathers probably were guilty of terrorism, but they had no other way of getting out from under the yolk of colonial rule unless they were willing to wait a few hundred years. Look at how we treated peaceful resistance from Ghandi and his followers. Our empire was held to together by a very professional army who thought nothing of the odd massacre.

      We in Britain have also been guilty of terrorism though in some peoples eyes. We quite happily sent people to the continent to fight Germany via clandestine means. We also thought nothing of attacking civilians, we levelled Dresden and Hamburg without a moments thought. Unless you think that declaring war means that people fighting for you cannot be terrorists even if they kill and maim civilians? I am not apologising to anyone for Britains conduct during the war, but you can be damn sure that if Germany had won then they would be calling the French resistance terrorists in history books.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    49. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winners are guerrillas, losers are terrorists

    50. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not only about money.

      FTFY.

      Seriously, if there wasn't any money to be made in helping the government do end runs around constitutionally protected civil rights, the Ownership Society ilk wouldn't bother.

    51. Re:Hey, guess what! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they want to privatize everything? Its not about money.

      Oh, its about money too. That's what they call a twofer.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    52. Re:Hey, guess what! by superwiz · · Score: 2

      He didn't ask for it to be banned. He asked for it to be labeled. Oh, and he didn't introduce a law. He asked Google to exercise its free speech in order to provide a public service.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    53. Re:Hey, guess what! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Well, yes I find this sort of jawboning disgusting. However as far as I can tell Google could easily just tell the Honorable Senator to go pound salt.

      As far as first amendment friendly platforms, why not Google Blogger?

    54. Re:Hey, guess what! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Cops Inc couldn't tell US Army LLC what to publish on their website.

    55. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      They could if they had the same parent company.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    56. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      Is it sad or scary that I didn't realize you were being sarcastic until the last line?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    57. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

      Well honestly when a Senator asks for something, it's not "oh hey and would you mind doing this?", its "oh hey you should do this or else we'll force through a law forcing you to do it anyway".

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    58. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your definition 9/11 is guerrilla warfare because it was a blow at the economy of Al Qaeda's enemies. And this means we must reconsider the "War on Terror" from the beginning and conclude that Al Qaeda is not a terrorist group but a guerrilla.
      We still have the same problem: the American governments is fine with A when it does A, but it isn't fine with it when somebody else does it. That's called double standards, bias and hypocrisy.

    59. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 1

      I would consider what happened to John Malcolm (twice) to cross the line into a blatant act of terrorism to intimidate him other Loyalists.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Malcolm_(Loyalist)

      Wikipedia could be secretly infiltrated by Patriots, sneakily and subtly editing Wikipedia articles to paint all Loyalists in the worst light possible; beyond that possibility in both cases where John Malcolm was tarred and feathered it sounds like he had been found guilty by a mob of "acting like a complete and utter douche beyond acceptable societal norms". Incidentally, the second time he got tarred and feathered it was for knocking out the guy trying to stop him from beating up a kid. Swell guy there.

      Mob Justice != Terrorism

      The parties acting during the Revolutionary War were many things, despite the current "everything == terrorism" fad I don't think that term can accurately be retroactively applied to the revolutionaries on either side. It was a war, fought with conventional methods on one side and guerrilla tactics on the other. There was no strategy of attacks on non-combatants from either side as being the method to get the surrender of the other. The strategy of both sides was to reduce the effectiveness of the other military until one or the other gave up the will to fight.

    60. Re:Hey, guess what! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      I'd have to agree with you.

      terrorism would have put fear 'out there' first, probably with some ultimatum. "convert all of the US to islam in the next 24 hours or we attack". THAT will terrorize the nation.

      but attacking, then saying 'this is because we hate you guys' not really terrorism. they didn't hold us in terror. they simply just hit us.

      does hitting an enemy qualify as terrorism?

      most of us know this term is over-used and hyperbole by now.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    61. Re:Hey, guess what! by chrb · · Score: 1

      Who said terrorism had to have an aim of inducing fear in the general population? Why would attacks intended to induce terror in a sub-group of the population, like an ethno-religious minority, not be considered terrorism? Attacks against the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered terrorism by many Americans, and by that definition attacks against the British military in North America would also be classified as terrorism.

    62. Re:Hey, guess what! by z4ce · · Score: 1

      undo accidental mod

    63. Re:Hey, guess what! by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are many such "civilian" things that are considered valid military targets by the U.S.: telephone networks (when the enemy military has it's own comms networks, so destroying the civilian system does not affect them), civilian electricity infrastructure (electric plants, city substations etc.), civilian fuel supplies, factories that manufacture everything from baby milk powder to paint, the foreign embassy of a non-combatant nation (an "accident" - the only bombing in that war directed by the CIA. Hmm.), and even "unfriendly" media (actually Al Jazeera has been bombed several times, their Kabul offices were bombed, their Baghdad offices were bombed, their Basra offices were bombed, and the Basra Sheraton was bombed when the only guests were Al Jazeera journalists.) Precision guided bombs, hardly ever miss, right? And it was only 70 years ago when the Allies considered carpet bombing of the civilian population to be a valid military tactic (justified because civilians were obviously working in the factories making war items).

      Also there are plenty of people who consider police stations valid targets - the Israelis have hit police stations in Gaza and the West Bank, killing numerous policemen, the IRA used to target police stations, etc.

    64. Re:Hey, guess what! by chrb · · Score: 1

      Terrorism: Flying jetliners into buildings in a way sure to get good media coverage and keeping the threat of the possibility of it happening again ambiguous.

      You are assuming that the attacks were intended to cause terror in the general population. What if the attacks were intended as an act of war? Taking control of an enemy's infrastructure and using it to attack military targets (which the Pentagon and the White House would qualify as) sounds like guerrilla warfare. What if the aim of the attacks was to draw the U.S. into a larger conflict based in the Middle East, on territory where they could fight more effectively, which was apparently Bin Laden's stated plan? That would be a valid military goal, wouldn't it?

    65. Re:Hey, guess what! by chrb · · Score: 1

      The Constitution only governs federal law. The basis for most of the laws of the U.S. was English common law. Law of the United States

    66. Re:Hey, guess what! by rpbird · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they did. The American navy carried on a widespread campaign of commerce raiding and even landed raiders along the coast of England. John the Painter carried out what would now be called terrorist strikes on English shipyards. Our irregular militia forces targeted British officers, which at the time was contrary to the rules of war. The terrorist brush the government now wields is so broad, it would definitely include these activities. If script kiddies can be threatened with terrorism charges for defacing government web sites, then anything anyone does can be construed by our government as "terrorism."

    67. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 1

      So by your definition 9/11 is guerrilla warfare because it was a blow at the economy of Al Qaeda's enemies.

      Nope Mr. Anonymous, I don't think that the definition of Guerrilla Warfare vs. Terrorism revolves around the economy of the participants. What did I write that made you think that?

    68. Re:Hey, guess what! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Do you really see the WTC as an attack on industrial infrastructure?

      The targets were the Whitehouse (failed), the Pentagon and the WTC which taken together can easily be interpreted as a direct and highly symbolic attack on their enemies political, military, and economic HQ. I think the symbolism in the targets is precisely why the 911 attacks terrorised the establishment, whereas the reaction to previous attacks had been to fire a couple of cruise missiles at some obscure cult camped in an equally obscure third world hell hole.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    69. Re:Hey, guess what! by anagama · · Score: 1

      I think I'll just join Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong and get behind a rat thing.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    70. Re:Hey, guess what! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded. It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.

      The attacks were more symbolic than physical, they targeted the Political, military, and economic HQ's of their enemy. If you can't see that as "command and control" then it's your bias that is the problem. Each attack is unique in the endless tit-for-tat cycle of violence, most are forgotten by the general public within days. The coordinated 9/11 attacks gave the US a symbolic black-eye with a king hit in broad daylight, it was so far from legitimate that most of humanity was literally dumbstruck for a while.

      In other words the definition of "legitimate military target" is purely in the eye of the surviving beholder. This is where the bias you speak of has crept into your post.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    71. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you'd consider flying a jetliner into the Pentagon (a military headquarters building) to be guerrilla warfare rather than terrorism then, right?

    72. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically speaking, the founding fathers were terrorists....in the eyes of the British.

    73. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guerilla tactic: attack an economic stronghold of your enemy. . .such as the WTC

      The WTC wasn't chosen just because it was big, had a lot of people in it, and would attract a lot of media attention. It damaged our economy directly by taking out many important offices and those who ran them, and on top of that it damaged the economy indirectly by causing massive uncertainty in practically every U.S. market. There's a reason one of Bush's first responses to the event was "go out and buy stuff." It was the least we could do to prevent a total economic collapse (the silly terrorists didn't realize that they didn't need to attack our economy, we already kamikazed it by electing Reaganomic neo-cons).

      Anyway, I would argue that any offensive form of guerilla warfare is hard to distinguish from terrorism. If your country's being invaded by a larger foreign entity and you defend it with guerilla warfare, that definitely is not terrorism. But when you take the offensive . . . For instance, when Clinton wagged the dog and bombed Iraq because Saddam wasn't 'cooperating,' that shit was terrorism. We sent planes into their country and dropped bombs on their infrastructure - on factories that looked like on blurry satellite that they may be used to create weapons. Factories like the ones we searched when we invaded Iraq under Bush only to find out that they were just regular factories.

    74. Re:Hey, guess what! by dryeo · · Score: 1
      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    75. Re:Hey, guess what! by dryeo · · Score: 0
      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    76. Re:Hey, guess what! by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      That'd work fine, provided there's no "rug pulling" going on after it's established. :)

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    77. Re:Hey, guess what! by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Liberman has a long history of chastising public institutions which he thinks are acting irresponsibly. He was known for chastising Hollywood for glorifying sex and violence. He doesn't try to introduce laws which would change that. He just uses his pulpit to shake his head at some people (rather than wag his finger).

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    78. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 1

      They also terrorized Loyalists, which is why most of them fled to Canada.

      I'm going to gently point out that your link for "terrorized" points to a page for North Carolina Hotels and Tourism, with all of a single entry ("The militia terrorized loyalist communities. The British got blamed for all the trouble of that day, whether they were guilty or not") relating to terrorism (and in the context doesn't indicate terrorism in the Asymmetric Warfare sense) and your link for "most of them fled to Canada" goes to a Wikipedia article which says that only 10 - 15% left.

      I'm sure the colonies were an unpleasant place to be a Loyalist in the midst of a war for independence and I can understand why some would move to an area where Great Britain was still clearly in charge but nothing you've linked to actually seems to offer evidence indicating that terrorism was the strategy of the Patriots.

    79. Re:Hey, guess what! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No more of a "legitimate military target" than a tea ship. Honestly, every person I know is more terrified of our own government at this point than of someone blowing up a plane or building.

    80. Re:Hey, guess what! by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

      a lot of Canadian ancestors would beg to differ on that.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    81. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice how the constitution says that the "Congress shall make no law" and not that "every natural person have the right". From this follows the freedom for the corporations to make such limitations to the rights of others, as the recognition of inalienable, natural rights is something only a government should do in the US.
      --
      This terrorific content was written in the decadent Europe.

    82. Re:Hey, guess what! by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

      I grew up in Kingston Ontario, part of Canada that was largely settled by Loyalists. Even after 200 years the hatred for all things American by the general population was rather shocking.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    83. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the docks were operated by civilians, then it's terrorism. No matter how you spin it. And it's guerilla warfare when you're defending, blowing up THEIR docks is not defending.

      The sad part is that those people fought for things like the right to own land, pay sensible taxes, and other things we now take for granted. Today's terrorists are doing what they do, because you don't pray to the exact same religion as they do. We're putting muslims together, but if you stop making us the target, they'll turn on their own.

      I understand the necessity of armies, war etc. But other than a few countries where there's starvation because fighting is considered more important than farming, life is pretty good for everyone. Even the Chinese with their communism have a pretty good life compared to the thousands of years before. So really, terrorists these days are nothing more than anarchists with a focus.

    84. Re:Hey, guess what! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      quite right they where considered "Traitors" not Terorists

    85. Re:Hey, guess what! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      18 century political caricatures where very offensive - and if you compare the British press today the editorial cartoons a re far far stronger than anything published in the usa media - Steve bell would never get published.

    86. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's weird is how, almost to a man, the government always calls any enemy attacks "cowardly". Why exactly are they cowardly?

      Because they didn't show their faces when the bomb detonated? So are drone pilots "cowardly"?

      On the other hand, even if enemy fighters die when they do their bombing, they're still called cowardly.

      I figure calling them cowards is just coordinated psy-ops.

    87. Re:Hey, guess what! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because the founding fathers were terrorists. If they were alive today they'd probably be held in Gitmo.

    88. Re:Hey, guess what! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      none of you ac's do.

    89. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you were shocked by the environment you grew up in, but that neither indicates that most (or even many) of the Loyalists in the colonies left due to the Patriots using terrorism as a war tactic against the British or anyone else (because its abundantly obvious they didn't). If I were a Loyalist displaced by the Revolutionary war I'd be pretty pissed too...

      Anger != Evidence of Terrorism

    90. Re:Hey, guess what! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      I think you confused chasing the loyalists out of the country with a guerrilla tactic where an insurgent targets a public place and indiscriminately blows stuff up to kill and maim the general population. I think you are reading too much in the "terrorized" verb in that web site.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    91. Re:Hey, guess what! by joshuac · · Score: 1

      How do you confuse mob vengeance (Tarring and Feathering) with Terrorism? Go back and read the first paragraph of the first search result you linked to. A mob cannot by definition is not a group engage in organized pre-planned behavior. No more terrorism than a couple bullies impulsively beating up another kid at school for making them angry.

      ...Unless your definition of "Terrorism" is "anything that scares people", which would encompass all violence and all threats of violence between people. Although there are differences of opinion on the details, there is a consensus as defining Terrorism as a type of asymmetric warfare, itself a subset of warfare, which is then a subset of violence. Your posts seem to indicate you think "Terrorism" is any type of violence.

      Non-combatants targeting non-combatants alone show your examples don't understand what "Terrorism" is.

    92. Re:Hey, guess what! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If the docks were operated by civilians, then it's terrorism. No matter how you spin it.

      So is it still terrorism to blow up a factory operated by civilians, when the factory is making weaponry?

    93. Re:Hey, guess what! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?

      If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.

      Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.

      It certainly can be. Infrastructure exists because people depend upon it. Blow up natural gas or power distribution facilities in the middle of winter (even if that act doesn't injure a single person in and of itself) and cause a few hundred thousand people to freeze to death would certainly qualify as terrorism. Or an act of war, if we find out that the people who did it were backed by a national government.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    94. Re:Hey, guess what! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That's nonsense.

      The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded.

      It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.

      A police station is no more of a valid military target either.

      I have news for you: ever since the invention of the long-range bomber (and now ICBMS, cruise-missiles, drones and probably other things we don't know about) civilian populations have been legitimate military targets. It didn't used to be that way, but it is now. How does the old joke go? Military engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.

      In wars past you had to fight your way through the enemy's ground forces in order to reach his cities, his production facilities. If you succeeded in doing that, you had pretty much already won, so additional deaths among the populace were largely unnecessary. However, once the ability to drop bombs on cities without having to engage ground forces was practical, everything changed. Now the means of production of war materiel could be attacked directly: no need to beat the grunts on the ground, no need to cut his supply lines. Just destroy the factories that make everything he needs to keep going. No weapons, no ammo, no food ... take out the batteries and the war machine grinds to a halt.

      But here's the problem (and it was a moral dilemma at the time.) Who do you think mans the enemy's factories? Soldiers? Where do you think those factories are located? Remote deserts? The answer is ... neither: wars are supplied mostly by repurposed commercial plants, located in the enemy's cities, operated by the same ordinary citizens who used to make underwear and automobiles in times of peace.

      What it comes down to is this: in any modern war, there are no non-combatants. There are only people who are lucky enough not to get bombed. That's especially true in the atomic age: nuclear weapons are not what you would call surgical.

      Of course, only terrorists imagine that they are in some kind of "war", and we for our part legitimize them by calling our response a "War on Terror". What we really have is, at best, an expensive overreaction on the part of law enforcement. Much like all of our other "War ons ..."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    95. Re:Hey, guess what! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No more of a "legitimate military target" than a tea ship. Honestly, every person I know is more terrified of our own government at this point than of someone blowing up a plane or building.

      Well, I'm not "terrified" of it yet, exactly, but I'm more than a little concerned about where it is going. Of course, the response of government is usually along the lines of "well, if you only knew what we've had to do keep you safe ... but we can't tell you that, 'cause it's a secret."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    96. Re:Hey, guess what! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      A politician lied, imagine that?

      That's the problem here. We allow terms to be used with such impugnity that they become pretty much meaningless. It's not limited to politics of course. Advertisers love to do the same thing to language.

      Downloading a single MP3 is "piracy". In neither case does the relevant law support the usage.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    97. Re:Hey, guess what! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Even worse, being surprised that Bill Clinton lied?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. Yo Joe by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Honorable Senator Lieberman:

    May I interest you in an important Historical Document that, I might add, you were supposed to have read and understood when you were sworn into the Senate?

    Reading comprehension is important for everyone.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Yo Joe by xs650 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Senator from Israel doesn't recognize the US Constitution.

    2. Re:Yo Joe by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

    3. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He read and understood it. He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

      Well, if that's the case ... then he's clearly a terrorist.

      Upholding and defending the principles of the US constitution is part of the job description, isn't it?

      So, if he's against the Constitution, he's against America, and therefore a terrorist. He should be publicly flogged, and then hanged until dead.

      Of course, I'm not seriously advocating violence towards him ... but I find it appalling that lawmakers have been stomping over enshrined rights to keep up this farce of Homeland Security ... hell, even the term dredges up images of Nazi's and their Fatherland.

    4. Re:Yo Joe by somersault · · Score: 1

      No no no.. it's not the Fatherland, it's "Papa Joe's".

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Yo Joe by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      We can't wait for all this laws & courts bullshit, grab the terr'ist and throw him in Gitmo, and torture him to find out who he's working for!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I think he is a shmuck, he just wants labels placed on people that he may not be fond of. Did they not just prove the guy was innocent, innocent until proven guilty or those that only work for your contributors. I liked alf but this is insane, so if you put a jewish joke out there you may be labeled, if you go against what he is claiming as truth you are labeled. How again do these people get elected, we really need some type of facebook polls for getting people into the correct positions, they also need exams before you can even apply to be a person of power like constitutional law exams, budget management, maybe even disclosure of all your afilitions both in the books and out, and then when you want to go into office your just a profile, you do not perform your gone, all your votes and what has been done are in a profile. Forums for comments like this guy is a shmuck he needs to be removed, so the people that vote for him know the who he is. I think in todays digital age we need to begin cleaning up DC.

    7. Re:Yo Joe by truthsearch · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Unfortunately there are no consequences for contradicting their sworn oath. At best they could be impeached by an ethics committee, but their coworkers wouldn't do that. They could be voted out of office but citizens are more concerned about the immediate threats to their pocket books and security. Plus anyone moral and intelligent enough to run against them doesn't want to deal with the BS.

    8. Re:Yo Joe by Surt · · Score: 1

      I don't see the relevance to a corporation's content policy? Do you suggest that the congress can't use its influence to encourage voluntary compliance with the movie rating system either?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:Yo Joe by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Hey, hey, hey... that wasn't meant that way! Back when that paper was written, they didn't expect anything like the internet to happen where everyone and not just a select few could make their voices heard.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Yo Joe by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but who wants a pizza from a guy named "Lieberman"?

    11. Re:Yo Joe by The+Askylist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you need to torture the Senator for Tel Aviv East to find out who he's working for. I wonder if he'd have banned Ben Gurion's or Begin's blogs if they'd had such things when terrorism was used to found his favourite rogue state?

    12. Re:Yo Joe by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I don't see the relevance to a corporation's content policy? Do you suggest that the congress can't use its influence to encourage voluntary compliance with the movie rating system either?

      Yes, I definitely think that a standing Senator should not be advocating abrogating the Constitution and associated documents. Private citizen Lieberman can do whatever he pleases in this regard, but he should not put "Senator" in front of his name nor should it be on US Senate letterhead. The movie rating system, will kinda dumb, does not infringe on any constitutional boundaries. If it did, then the same considerations would apply.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Yo Joe by Surt · · Score: 1

      My question is what constitutional boundary this is stepping on that is different from the movie rating system. As long as it's all voluntary and not a matter of US law, I can't see the difference between the two.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    14. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why he is not proposing a law against the terrorist blogs, that pesky constitution. What he is doing is trying to pressure a corporation to do his dirty work for him, you know that the pesky constitution only applies to the Government don't you.

    15. Re:Yo Joe by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's all nonsense. It's all ultimately government censorship. Although it's especially blatant when it is a member of the government harrasing a "private entity" to be the tool of government policy.

      At least the MPAA is an attempt by the industry to avoid government regulation by self-regulating.

      Both are ultimately the result of the threat of the government to do what it really should have no power to do.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    16. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lieberman is not a terrorist (since that would require some level of courage), but a traitor.

    17. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, he does not give a shit: there's no financial benefit in upholding the Constitution for a Senator.

    18. Re:Yo Joe by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      nah had him over the the ANA - much quicker and cheaper :-)

    19. Re:Yo Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

  5. Politicians by folderol · · Score: 2

    Whenever I think they can't get any more stupid, one of them goes and proves me wrong.

    1. Re:Politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While politicians, as a whole, are guaranteed to be a never-ending source of stupid statements and ideas, Lieberman is a class of lunacy and idiocy unto himself.

    2. Re:Politicians by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Whenever I think they can't get any more stupid, one of them goes and proves me wrong.

      The sad thing is, that limits of stupidity are meant to be exceeded.

      Force always attracts men of low morality.Albert Einstein

      He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.
      He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.Albert Einstein

      Human beings must have action; and they will make it if they cannot find it.Albert Einstein

      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.Albert Einstein

      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.Albert Einstein

      Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein

      These quotes, from the man who was the progenitor of thermo-nuclear weapons.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    3. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein

      This is actually not correct, as there is one thing that is worse and much more dangerous: Passing laws that have no support in the general population. You can NOT uphold laws against the will of your subjects. A law that has no support will be ignored at best. Subverted at worst.

      It's also not so much the bad law that's dangerous. What makes it so dangerous is that people start to question upholding the rest of the legal code as well. If I ignore this law, why not that one, too?

      Once you made someone a criminal, he's prone to ignore other laws because, hey, why bother whether I go to jail? For reference, see the 1930s and prohibition.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Politicians by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      That's stupid. You're equating ignoring an unjust law with doing something immoral. Laws and morality have very little to do with one another.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite the opposite, for the average person personal moral standards and conscience are the primary reasons to uphold or to break a law.

      Do you kill someone for fun or profit? I guess not. Why not? Because it's in the law that killing is wrong? If so, I question your morals, to be blunt. I don't kill people because I consider it wrong. That it's in the law is a coincidence, and I'm quite happy about it since it fits my moral codex, but that's not the primary reason why I don't go over to my neighbor, bash in his head and take his stereo (since, well, when he's dead it's not like he needs it anymore).

      Would you turn in someone who you know kills for fun or profit? Even a friend? Maybe so. Even if he's a friend, but killing someone is simply wrong. And I wouldn't consider someone my friend who goes about and kills people 'cause he doesn't like their looks.

      How about copying a movie or a song? Is it wrong? It's also in the law that it's not allowed, but how high is your inhibition to do it compared to murder? Same level? And if not, just because the punishment is lower? Ok, then how about nicking your old granny's purse? Same punishment (in my country) as for downloading a bunch of songs and movies. Same inhibition? Same level of "wrong"? It's the same punishment, and given that gramma is nearly blind, the chance of getting caught is also pretty much the same.

      Laws and morality have nothing to do with each other? Do you really think so?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.Albert Einstein

      This is actually not correct, as there is one thing that is worse and much more dangerous: Passing laws that have no support in the general population.

      So it's worse to pass laws with no support than laws that can't be enforced?

      You can NOT uphold laws against the will of your subjects. A law that has no support will be ignored at best. Subverted at worst.

      But laws with no support are laws that can't be enforced?

      A<A

      *head asplode*

    7. Re:Politicians by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Um, that's pretty much exactly what I was getting at. There's things that are wrong and things that are illegal but they aren't all the same things. There are things that are wrong but not illegal and vice-versa. Sure there is overlap, but less correlation.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    8. Re:Politicians by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Laws and morality have nothing to do with each other? Do you really think so?

      Given that everything you've said argues in favor of that, it makes no sense whatsoever for you to be asking that as though you think it isn't true.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    9. Re:Politicians by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Passing laws that have no support in the general population. You can NOT uphold laws against the will of your subjects. A law that has no support will be ignored at best. Subverted at worst.

      Yeah, right! And taking taxpayer money in order to give it to private banks cannot be done too since it's not what "your subjects" want, right?

    10. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, that's exactly the point. Making something illegal people do not consider immoral leads to people questioning that law. If you make things illegal that are not perceived as a transgression to the general consent of morality and legality, people start questioning not only this law without a "moral" foundation, they start questioning all laws. And once they break one law with impunity, because neither their moral codex considers it wrong, nor the people whose opinion actually means anything to them, but they're still considered criminals due to it, it becomes much easier, "morally", to break another one.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, you can actually enforce laws that have little or no support in the population. For reference, see Soviet Union.

      It's not whether a law is enforceable that makes it bad. There are quite a few, implicit or explicit, laws that are technically unenforceable, especially laws that affect most intra-familiar interactions. Like, it's illegal to kill off your parents when they become a burden. It would be quite easy to off your mom when she becomes a vegetable, yet it's rare that someone really does that. Because, hey, killing my mom is wrong, ok? It's just so damn wrong. Even if it was legal, how many would do it? Imagine it's legal and someone you know killed his mother because she became a burden. What's your view of that person? Would you still like them? Or would peer pressure weigh much more than legal enforcement?

      It's popular support that makes or breaks a law. Not whether the state can brutally force you to uphold it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You might have noticed recently that there is a wee bit of a backlash from that. Does OWS look like people nod and agree?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Politicians by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      Do you see any sign that the government cares about OWS?

    14. Re:Politicians by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not yet. Give 'em time, the protesters are still using the first liberty box, there are three more to come before government HAS to care.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Politicians by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      And once they break one law with impunity, because neither their moral codex considers it wrong, nor the people whose opinion actually means anything to them, but they're still considered criminals due to it, it becomes much easier, "morally", to break another one.

      I completely disagree with that last part. Each is a choice that stands on its own.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    16. Re:Politicians by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Do you see any sign that the government cares about OWS?

      The government does not care since the banksters and the corporate states of America has not told it to care.
      As for OWS, they are just a nuisance, when it comes time to shoo them away, then we will see what they are made of. We will also see what the government and banksters are really made of.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  6. Geez, it's already done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Illegal content isn't allowed on Blogger.com at present.

    Terrorism is illegal at present.

    Therefore nothing new to see here, just move along and stop wasting our time.

    Maybe Senators could focus on something important, like the economy and trillions in debt instead.

    1. Re:Geez, it's already done... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      "illegal content" is the issue.

      YouTube operates under "TV-Like" rules to proactively keep from being censored. Blogger is about speech. There is plenty of grey between an extreme opinion and illegal speech.

      If speech is illegal we have this process with the laws and courts.... Google will happily pull blogs ... With the proper warrants.

      Barring that process, shut up and track who posts subversive blogs... Hint: the bad guys aren't the ones running their mouths off publically. Those guys won't ever get on an airplane or near US customs.

    2. Re:Geez, it's already done... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Think before you speak! Do you REALLY want Lieberman to focus on something that's actually important?

      For god's sake, THINK before you say things like that!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Geez, it's already done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegal content isn't allowed on Blogger.com at present.

      Terrorism is illegal at present.

      Writing about terrorism is not the same thing as committing terrorist acts. If writing about terrorism was illegal, then we would have to lock up reporters from every major news outlet. Is advocating terrorism legal? IANAL, but I guess it depends a lot on the context. For example, if I say "OK, everyone, at noon, everyone storm the Elbonian embassy and blow up their nuclear slingshot"* might not be the same as writing an essay on the philosophical questions surrounding terrorism. It is definitely not illegal to write a blog arguing that terrorism is not immoral based on existentialism or whatever other pet theory you want to use.

      * I have nothing against the Elbonians, and I would stay away from their nuclear slingshots if I were you.

    4. Re:Geez, it's already done... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of grey between an extreme opinion and illegal speech.

      There's no grey, it's called the 1st amendment, the rest of is bullshit.

      They first tell you that terrorism speech is illegal, then they widen the definition of terrorism, and soon, everyone is considered a terrorist. This is just plain wrong and unconstitutional!

    5. Re:Geez, it's already done... by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      There is grey or I can slander you at your job with complete fabrications and get you fired and just claim free speech. Also many other things that are censored would be considered legal given 100% free speech, like inciting a riot.

      I'm actually happy the law recognizes and tries to better define the grey area that makes for a better society as a whole. Now I also err on the side of free speech and don't consider Islamic extremist rants to be something worthy of censorship unless they are trying to incite murder or rioting. But there are other laws to get that taken down instead of the "terrorism" label.

    6. Re:Geez, it's already done... by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      First, they make laws against terrorists. Then, they widen them so that terrorism can apply to more people. Then, they widen them again so that absolutely everyone can be included as a *potential* terrorist, so the law applies to everyone. Then, at some point, people that do not agree with governments are said to be terrorists, even though they are just protestors. Last, you wake up in a dictatorship regime.

      Above, I haven't described USA, but what it can become if we don't take care!

    7. Re:Geez, it's already done... by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      True there is a potential slope but I don't think the slope is as slippery as you believe. As I said in my post I don't agree with a law censoring text in support of terrorist groups (with the exception of text that is intent on inciting violence which is covered on existing laws). But I don't agree every line of speech should be free or that there should be no laws against terrorism. I would be against expanding the definition of terrorism. Therefore for me the slope stops there. Viewing the world in black and white does not allow for a healthy society.

  7. This Video Has Been Removed by cosm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.'"

    Well Mr. Lieberman, you're quite the one to talk about inconsistent standards. And I'm sure censorship is most definitely the best way to fight terrorism online. It always works, right? Right?

    US Government: Fighting the symptoms, and not the causes. To get one vote at a time.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      US Government: Fighting the symptoms, and not the causes. To get one vote at a time.

      Of course, otherwise they might actually solve a problem or two, and we can't have that...

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      I went over to the Sargent, said, "Sargent, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench 'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug."

      He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... What about the significance of the pickle?

    4. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington."

      And, friends, somewhere in Ft. Meade, enshrined in some datacenter, is a study in ones and zeroes of my digital fingerprints. (Hai Guyz!)

      And the only reason I'm postin' you this post now is 'cause you may know somebody in a similiar situation. Or YOU may be in a similiar situation, and if you're in a situation like that, there's only one thing you can do:

      Log into your local elected official's mytwitterfacepage wherever you are, just log in, and post, "Senator--

      You can get anything you want from #Occupy Bittorrent."

      --and log out. You know, if one person, just one person does it, they may think he's just trolling and they won't take him.

      And if two people do it--in harmony--they may think they're both BRONIES and they won't take either of them. And if THREE people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin' in, postin' a bar of "#Occupy Bittorrent" and walkin' out? They might think it's an ORGANIZATION!

      And can you imagine FIFTY people a day? I said FIFTY people a day--loggin' in, postin ' a bar of "#Occupy Bittorrent" and walkin' out? Friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is, THE #OCCUPY BITTORENT ANTI-SOPA MOVEMENT!

      ...and all you gotta to do join is post this message the next time this article appears on the Slashdot duplicate post generator.

      With feeling.

      So we'll wait for it to come around as a duplicate on Slashdot here, and you can post it when it does.

    5. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      OK. You are inspired!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:This Video Has Been Removed by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      well done. a day late, but close enough for gov't work.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  8. Lieberman is the terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who is trying to terrify us here? Why, Joe Lieberman and his ilk, of course. What is the biggest terrorist organization in the US? The Department of Homeland Security, who wastes no opportunity to further terrify the populace (terror alert! new scanners! we are at risk! etc.)

    1. Re:Lieberman is the terrorist by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      very true.

      I don't fly much anymore, but I'm far more terrified of my own government and its paid thugs (blue and other colors) than I am of ANY islamic scary-beard-guy.

      my chances of having a problem with mr scary-arab-beard-guy are nearly zero. my chances of having a problem with 'one of my own americans' is probably higher than 50% (pick a unit of time, probably will still hold true).

      face it, our own people terrorize us far more than foreigners do.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  9. Free speech and all that... by Macgyver7017 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suddenly we should ban certain content? How is google supposed to know what is protected speech and what is illegal? Why should they ban anything other than outright illegal content which they don't need policy to remove?

    1. Re:Free speech and all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suddenly we should ban certain content? How is google supposed to know what is protected speech and what is illegal? Why should they ban anything other than outright illegal content which they don't need policy to remove?

      Not my problem. Fix it now and give me votes, four-eyes, or I'll take your lunch money.

      --
      Joe L.

    2. Re:Free speech and all that... by kawabago · · Score: 1

      If Government can point to a program they can say they are doing something, even if it just makes things worse.

    3. Re:Free speech and all that... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Note that the senator didn't say ban. He just said users should be allowed to flag blog posts. Then again the next step probably IS to censor them....

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    4. Re:Free speech and all that... by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

      The US government will tell Google what to ban, just like the Chinese government does in China. Simple.

    5. Re:Free speech and all that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about what the content is, is about who created it, as paraphrasing the good but old it's not about what is said, but who says it. If the king says something it must be true because the king said so. If the convicted criminal, a poor or a subversive person says something, it must be correspondingly false.

  10. Who decides who's a terrorist? by mozumder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Should google label anything from the US government as terroristic?

    These days, no one can really tell who's the good guys, with random bizarre wars and occupations so on.

    "These Palestinians looks like they have some pretty good land we Jews can take.. Let's take it with US government funding!"

    1. Re:Who decides who's a terrorist? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      If the RIAA/MPAA has their way anyone not paying a use fee every time a tune or movie is played would be labeled a terrorist.

      I would also argue that the feds are terrorists for what they did to Gibson guitar.

    2. Re:Who decides who's a terrorist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      study your history. israel didn't cultivate the US as a daddy warbucks until the late 60s/early 70s. and that was only after the israelis had a falling out with their french buddies.

  11. What about Christian extremism? by Tastecicles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or is this yet another case of "one law for us, another for anyone who doesn't agree with us or fit our agenda-du-jour"?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Perhaps it is time the US wakes up and bans religion period. Religion has caused nothing but harm in this world and it is time we stop the harm from religion.

    2. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, such as that Judge absolutely laying in to his daughter with a bunch of religious nonsense with a belt who then ended up getting away with it simply because of that stupid Statue of Limitations.
      Worst part is he was enjoying it!

      That's like letting off a rapist because it was so many years ago. They could very well rape again
      Statue of limitations is a flawed concept. Certain people DO NOT CHANGE, EVER. Be it rapists or payment dodging. (the latter being the biggest reason we are in this god damn mess of a recession we are in now!)

    3. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those Christian Extremist suicide bombers who blew up all those abortion clinics, boy, we need to put a stop to that.
      And those Christian Extremists who made those death threats when South Park did an episode with Jesus in it. Man, those guys need to get real.

    4. Re:What about Christian extremism? by spidercoz · · Score: 2

      Yeah, counter extremism with extremism, good fucking plan, jackass.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:What about Christian extremism? by spidercoz · · Score: 0

      STATUTE, nimrod

      statue of limitations...you're your own fucking parody

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    6. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Damn straight, why bother with them as long as they're only terrorizing their own kids?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about such as George W. Bush Sr., Peter Olson and Ted Whiteside both of NATO, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, James Gordon Brown, Margaret Hilda Thatcher, John Major, David William Donald Cameron, Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill... ...Oh wait... these are mostly high-profile people who at one point or another made it as leaders of entire NATIONS (or in two cases, of international private security forces), were directly responsible for the violent deaths of THOUSANDS, and then had the audacity to claim it in the name of GOD.

      Please don't bitch about the lack of non-British or American names, these were just a few off the top of my head. If you want citations about the mass deaths caused directly on the orders of these individuals, run your own Google searches.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    8. Re:What about Christian extremism? by BeardedChimp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those Christian Extremist suicide bombers who blew up all those abortion clinics, boy, we need to put a stop to that. And those Christian Extremists who made those death threats when South Park did an episode with Jesus in it. Man, those guys need to get real.

      Yeah and those Christian Extremists who set off a car bomb in Omagh killing 29 people, they really need to get real.

    9. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Grave · · Score: 1

      Yeah, counter extremism with extremism, good fucking plan, jackass.

      This is precisely what the US government has been doing for the last decade, in case you hadn't noticed.

    10. Re:What about Christian extremism? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we should get rid of one of the founding principles of the country? I really hope that's sarcasm.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    11. Re:What about Christian extremism? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Decade? A half century at least.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    12. Re:What about Christian extremism? by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Or, insider trading legal for Congress and staff but not for us?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  12. Congress Shall Make No Law ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... but unfortunately that doesn't stop individual Sith Senators from trying to use their influence to curb free speech.

    Ironically, some of his speeches on Iran would probably have to be censored if he had his way. I guess YouTube already won't host his Beach Boys parody, BOMB-BOMB-BOMB BOMB-BOMB-IRAN.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Congress Shall Make No Law ... by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      I guess YouTube already won't host his Beach Boys parody, BOMB-BOMB-BOMB BOMB-BOMB-IRAN.

      Wasn't that John McCain?

    2. Re:Congress Shall Make No Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that the BOMB-BOMB IRAN routine was McCain, not Lieberman.

  13. Senator Lieberman dreams of Iran by drobety · · Score: 1

    Senator Lieberman's wet dream is to be at the head of a state with the power to edict fatwas in order to protect and push his dogmas, just like those ruling Iran.

    1. Re:Senator Lieberman dreams of Iran by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's why the US government is so pissed at Iran. Dammit, they may do it, why can't we?

      It's jealousy, nothing else.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... by BigDXLT · · Score: 1

    Tattoo "TERRORIST" across their foreheads too.
    Put neon lights on their homes.
    Force them to put "I am a TERRORIST" at the start of every sentence they speak.

    US Govamnent's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism in real life.

    1. Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tattoo "TERRORIST" across their foreheads too.

      That's a bit much, don't you think? Perhaps instead we should just make them wear some sort of symbol on their clothes. A nice yellow star, or a pink square, perhaps?

      Put neon lights on their homes.

      A nice big red cross on the door.

    2. Re:Sign, sign, everywhere a sign... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Make them drink out of different drinking fountains. Because you know no one wants to drink out of the same fountain as a terrorist, right?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  15. I also want a label made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please add a moron button next to every politician's post.

  16. Joe Lieberman is a Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And should be treated as such.

    1. Re:Joe Lieberman is a Nazi by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think he already gets money from big business, so ... mission accomplished.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Lieberman is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lieberman is a complete and sad joke as a senator. He's a typical politician with absolutely no respect for the Constitution.

  18. What defines a terrorist? by Foxhoundz · · Score: 1

    I smell a messy court battle if this picks up traction.

  19. Remember, this retard was almost our VP by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    Just sayin . . .

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    1. Re:Remember, this retard was almost our VP by superwiz · · Score: 0

      So? Obama is our President. Just saying....

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  20. Goddammit Droopy... by spidercoz · · Score: 2

    Just shut the fuck up

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  21. Lieberman causes terror by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's guys like Lieberman that drag American into the whole Middle-east religious wars, due to his fundamentalist support for Israel.

    I propose that whenever Google reports search results pertaining to Lieberman, they're required to mark-up him as being a root-cause of America's terrorism problem.

    1. Re:Lieberman causes terror by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Please, enlighten me. But please also stop posting anonymously.

    2. Re:Lieberman causes terror by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      end times...fuck off retard. people like you are the fucking problem

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:Lieberman causes terror by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And why don't you educate him and all of us? It's not like you're not free to speak...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Lieberman causes terror by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What end times?

    5. Re:Lieberman causes terror by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Personally I agree with you. I believe in the end times and I understand the point you're trying to make. But all you're doing by posting this here is cementing the idea that religious people are crazy. We don't need more of that-there are enough crazy religious nuts damaging our image already.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    6. Re:Lieberman causes terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the root cause is oil.

      As Huntsman says, the true cost per gallon is ~$15/gallon when you count the security subsidies.

  22. Inconsistent standards? by mrjb · · Score: 1

    "Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online." They're not inconsistent standards. By default, Google just index bloody everything. Mr. Liebermann says he wants to counter terrorism but continues to define that as violent Islamist extremism. Apparently other forms of violent extremism (KKK) are tolerable. Who's being inconsistent here? Also, free speech yada yada yada. Now, I don't have to agree with a viewpoint to defend people's right to express it. I do think that mr. Liebermann got one thing right- Sure, add a label to the search result, but don't block the result itself. As long as there's no tracking going on to see who's visiting labeled results, I'm fine with that. Just because I'm reading a page written by a suspected terrorist, that doesn't make me one too.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Inconsistent standards? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, add the label.

      And let us search with "label:terrorist", "label:piracy" and "label:porn".

  23. Violation by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? The right for free speech needs to be absolute and effective for everyone or it will never work. Having to brand a blog from a terrorist violates that right. It's free speech just not free and not read with out prejudgement.

    1. Re:Violation by superwiz · · Score: 1

      The right to speak is not a right to speak and not be judged for it. You have a right to be an ass. But if you exercise that right, don't expect not to be treated like an ass.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    2. Re:Violation by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      I still shouldn't have ass label on my blog then, if a terrorist wants to blog then let him / her blog. Whats happened here is the US has realized that they were the biggest kid in kindergarten and decided to be a bully, now in grade 8 there mid size and have no prospects and 3/4 of the school wants there ass. Now there trying to hide behind the teachers for protection and making faces at the kids who want and have a right to kill them. 9/11 was a prime example that the US walks around like it's shit don't stink but in fact they it's the smelliest crap in the pile. So the bully who now got beat up wants to file police charges and all the other parents are tell that kids parents to fuck off. PREFECT EXAMPLE!

  24. This is why we can't have nice government by zephvark · · Score: 2

    What we need here is a law that politicians can be arrested for egregious stupidity. Oh, it would be a bit chaotic for the first few days, having to replace 99.5% of them, but I'm thinking we could substitute with labrador retrievers without any noticeable drop in efficiency.

    1. Re:This is why we can't have nice government by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      And a marked increase in loyalty

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:This is why we can't have nice government by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, keep dreaming. Right after that we can start holding them to moral standards too.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:This is why we can't have nice government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want is ANY elected official that votes for something that is later ruled as unconstitutional is banned from seeking public office ever again. They can finish serving their current term but they have proven that they aren't fit for any public post.
      This would put a quick end to unconstitutional law-making, but it might end up tilting the checks and balances a little too far to the Judicial.

    4. Re:This is why we can't have nice government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an addendum, the politician must also lose their pension, also banned from lobbying. No gravy train for life for fools.

    5. Re:This is why we can't have nice government by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You want to get rid of the other 0.5%, admit it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:This is why we can't have nice government by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      ;) might as well make it a clean flush

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  25. how do you catch terrorists? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You track them.
    How do you track them?
    You lure them our into the open.
    How do you get them in the open?
    You lull them into a false sense of complacency.

    If you prevent this content, it still it exists, it just moves underground. The serious terrorists are already encrypting and doing steganography, its about catching casual idiots like this guy.

    So senator joe is no tactician. Allow this content, and monitor it for the lone yahoos. Basic strategy joe

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  26. testing our elected representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm starting to think that we need to make our elected representatives take the same test we force immigrants to take to become US citizens.

    1. Re:testing our elected representatives by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      That would be hilarious. I'd bet money not a one of them would pass. Imagine the news blowup on that.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:testing our elected representatives by hazah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This will only highlight the absurdity that is that test. I have yet to see any form of loyalty built up by making individuals feel inferior. The test itself is pointless. The ignorance displayed by those who are born here is staggering. On average, Immigrants that pass the test tend to display more knowledge about the nation and its history than those born into it. This is stupid as it diminishes opportunities for those who can contribute to the system, and increases opportunities for individuals who leach off of it. Just like "no child left behind". It's a great sound bite, until you comprehend the consequences.

  27. Ban Leiberman from the internet! For America! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not take away Leiberman's webpage/blog/twitter from search results?

    Seems like Senators and corporations are the only persons granted free speech anymore.

  28. Consistent flagging feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if there really were one, it would be better to have it client-side anyway. If Google has a role to play in giving users a good way to tag content, the Chome project, not Google's websites, are the right place for it.

    Until then, we have stuff like the WOT plugin, though which not ideal, are at least a step in the right direction and popular/used enough to be useful.

  29. Easily Explained by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Senator Joe Lieberman is not running for re-election.

    1. Re:Easily Explained by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If this kick in the nuts of the constitution gets him votes, I lost all hopes for the USA.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. This should be interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Members of Congress usually have absolute immunity from damages for legislative activities (passing laws, resolutions, etc.). But I wonder if they can be held liable if they do something outside their legislative duties, like writing a letter on official letterhead. It would certainly make for an interesting argument: Can a member of Congress be held financially liable for publicly pressuring a private entity, outside of the legislative process, to censor a customer's protected speech? I'd certainly be wiling to try if it was me that they did it to.

    BTW, for those who say general advocacy of violent activities, complete with links to bomb-making materials, isn't protected speech:

    "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 297-298 (1961), 'the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.' See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 134 (1966). A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control."

    Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Note that this was a unanimous decision.

    For some more cases holding that the First Amendment does not permit the government to engage in viewpoint-based regulation of speech absent a compelling governmental interest, such as averting a clear and present danger of immediate (not speculative it-might-happen-soon violence), see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992); Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988); Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969); Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959).

  31. The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-State by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  32. Woot, Evil Bit! by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone's trying to backdoor the evil bit into existence!

  33. I still don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How US people can be THAT STUPID.

    A few days ago, while reading the paper, i've readed an article about how most USA people would approve to take military actions against Iran.

    After seeing what happened in Iraq, Afganistan, Iraq again, why is it always so easy for the US goverment to confuse people and make them believe that they are the good guys?, don't you realize that you're the world's bully?, don't you know that most of the world already hate the US?.

    We are all waiting for the US to find at least one sign that Iraq has "weapons of mass distruction", you know, because that is what the US said was the reason to invade (again) Iraq.

    1. Re:I still don't understand... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, the world is waiting for the US to crumble. We don't really want to see any WMDs anymore, nobody gives half a shit about it. We just want to know when the bully gets tossed out of the school so we don't have to act as if we like him anymore to avoid getting beaten up.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:I still don't understand... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that a significant number of Americans want to start WWIII in the Middle East so they will be 'Raptured Away'.

    3. Re:I still don't understand... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Actually, the world is waiting for the US to crumble. We don't really want to see any WMDs anymore, nobody gives half a shit about it. We just want to know when the bully gets tossed out of the school so we don't have to act as if we like him anymore to avoid getting beaten up.

      Until you grow a pair, you're going to have to kiss someone's ass even if the US does crumble.

    4. Re:I still don't understand... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dunno, but if it's anything like school, the moment the bully gets tossed, we noticed that we're better off if we don't let some idiot like that emerge again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Funny

    More like the Three Stooges version of 1984.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  35. Useless to us all. by hazah · · Score: 1

    counter violent Islamist extremism online

    This, of course, means nothing. One cannot counter any sort of extremism on-line, Islamic or otherwise. The whole premise stinks of naivety-sm. Alas, this is really why we wont see a solution to the problem. Those responsible view the world through children's eyes.

  36. Only Muslims are terrorists? by Mononoke · · Score: 2

    Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.

    So their standards are not affecting your ability to counter violent Jewish, Christian, or other religious extremism online?

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  37. VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I don't see Nancy Peloci or George Soros in that list ... intellectually honest much?

    2. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What exactly is it that you right-wingers think George Soros does, that inspires so much hatred? It's amusing that you Fox News disciples seem to think that just uttering the man's name means a lot to the rest of us. It doesn't. The only time I've seen any examples of what he's supposedly so bad for, was when Glenn Beck tried to claim that Soros helped the Nazi regime (when he was a child no less), which is utterly stupid, along with false. When you look at what he actually does, he is a pretty solid fighter of communism, and fascism in Europe

    3. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      It don't got Rothschilds or Warburgs, either - but you know, they the ones who really pwn3d the shit.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by postbigbang · · Score: 1, Funny

      Uh, hang on a second. We're war dialing your voice mail box now, to see what kind of dirt we can get on you. We'll have a reporter sitting outside your flat, a halfblock away, so that we can peer in on your subsversive activities, and all of those strange chicks with adam's apples going into your place.

      You and your George Soros defenders need to be taken down a notch. After all, communism is right around the corner, and you're an obvious sympathizer.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly is it that you right-wingers think George Soros does, that inspires so much hatred?

      Probably much the same thing that the Koch brothers do.

    6. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by ideonexus · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's funny is that even people on the Right can't tell you why they hate Soros so much. The man is a self-made billionaire who grew up in Hungary during the time of Nazi Germany, and is one of the most successful capitalists in the world. He is largely credited with being crucial to the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, where he pumped millions of dollars into supporting pro-democratic programs and independent media. On top of that he is an incredible philanthropist contributing millions of dollars to organizations all over the world in support of spreading democracy, egalitarianism, and toppling oppressive regimes.

      As far as I can tell, the reason they hate him is because he made getting George Bush out of office his top priority in 2003, arguing that America, as leader of the world, was taking the world off course with the War on Terror. He also supports death with dignity through assisted suicide and drug policy reform. The man is obviously a monster.

      Jon Stewart also had a fantastic takedown of right-wing conspiracy theories about Soros.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    7. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      Such as?

    8. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many serious replies I had, isn't it. If Soros was such a bad guy, I would think my challenge would be simple. What's amusing to me is that the Koch brothers were mentioned. These people are great at projection.

    9. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      So, you think George Soros is bankrolling the Occupy movement the way the Koch brothers bankrolled the Tea Party movement? I doubt it. But there are plenty of Fox reporters who would love to break that story so if he is I'm sure we'll hear about it.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    10. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by DCFusor · · Score: 2

      While all the people on that linked list are in some way "bad" - and maybe there's enough of them to be 1% (not likely) they're all just the paid pimps and front men for the very few that really run the show - they are the waiters at the club of the uber-rich - and some of them don't even know that, serving as useful idiots (like George Soros - or Barach Obama). Follow the money - the same family has been lending money to both sides in every war since Napoleon. DeBeers is owned by who? Do it and learn something.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    11. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by DCFusor · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Soros used derivatives to "break the bank" of England in one daring trade, which is how he got rich. It was legal then, but immoral then and now. He then uses his money to get what he wants in the world, like trying to rig elections in the States, of which he's not a citizen. But that being illegal hasn't stopped him trying, or any of a number of other things the conservatives (now a misuse of a once perfectly good word) don't like - like universal disarmament of citizens, populare in the UN because 90+% of the countries in it are dictatorships, who of course don't want their citizens to be able to rise against them. And so on. And, personally, the guy is a prick - he manipulates markets with lies, and that affects what I do for a living in a bad way.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    12. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Shh, you're not supposed to say who it really is. Let people think it's the paid pimps like Inmelt or Obama or Soros who are at fault, not their masters.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    13. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Fuzi719 · · Score: 1

      Riiiiiiiiight..... you're so believable and use so many shocking but well-documented facts to support your arguments. Now, I must assume that what you do for a living is shine the Koch brother's shoes?

    14. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I find the fact that some people like to hate on George Soros particularly telling. As you already pointed out, he is one of the most successful capitalists in the world, and spends a lot of his wealth on various causes, chief among them promoting self-determination, less government influence, and more independent media. Makes you wonder what people opposing him are in favor of ...

      Looking at the American political landscape, I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too? It appears to me that some of the more vocal Republicans actually support the opposite now: more government (to protect us against the terrorists), and more government meddling in your personal affairs (enforce Christian restrictions).

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    15. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Belial6 · · Score: 0

      What's amusing is the new conspiracy theory that Fox News is controlling major portions of the population. It has become a standard "witch" cry. Don't like what someone says, and it isn't strict party line Democrat, and the person must be a "Witch!!!"...err..."Fox News Watcher!!!"

    16. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by SpecBear · · Score: 1

      The Bank of England was only vulnerable because it was trying to manipulate its currency. They were trying to prop up the pound at a higher value than what the free market thought it was worth. In a free market, attempting to keep the price of something at an artificially high level results in one of two outcomes: (1) you wind up owning all of that something, or (2) you run out of money and take a massive loss when the price of that something falls back to its free market value.

      Normally this doesn't happen with currencies because market participants know that currencies are backed by governments. Very few people are willing to get into a pissing contest with a government bank. But Soros was able to bring enough firepower to the fight to force outcome (2).

      What Soros did is actually exactly what we should expect, and even welcome, from a free market. The people of England weren't screwed by Soros, they were screwed by a government that tried to play games with their currency and lost.

    17. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Well, if it is not Fox, where exactly do you get your bullshit from?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    18. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      What bullshit exactly are you talking about? The bullshit that Fox News isn't the head of a vast conspiracy???

    19. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Ok, so what other "news" source routinely demonizes George Soros? It's not a conspiracy theory, and you guys aren't a "major portion" of the population. Cartoons get better rating than Fox News. The point is that you twerps are a vocal ignorant minority that knows how to troll the internet. If Fox News isn't the source of the irrational Soros hate, then what is?

    20. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What bullshit exactly are you talking about? The bullshit that Fox News isn't the head of a vast conspiracy???

      Anything with Murdoch involved pretty much qualifies as a conspiracy. More to the point, the bulk of our once-independent news media organizations are controlled by just a few corporations (Newscorp and ClearChannel, for example.) That qualifies as a de facto conspiracy, when you get right down to it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    21. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too?

      The people who are supporting the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, are living in the past. Neither of our major political parties bear anything more than superficial resemblance to their former selves, and pretending that they do just guarantees that matters will go from worse to awful.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Ok, so what other "news" source routinely demonizes George Soros? It's not a conspiracy theory, and you guys aren't a "major portion" of the population. Cartoons get better rating than Fox News. The point is that you twerps are a vocal ignorant minority that knows how to troll the internet. If Fox News isn't the source of the irrational Soros hate, then what is?

      Fox News ... isn't a cartoon?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    23. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      And yet the "big 3" networks routinely get better ratings than cartoons and Fox News combined, and they don't spout off conspiracy theories about George Soros. I see you didn't even try to respond to the actual topic.

    24. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And yet the "big 3" networks routinely get better ratings than cartoons and Fox News combined, and they don't spout off conspiracy theories about George Soros. I see you didn't even try to respond to the actual topic.

      Lighten up, Scooby.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    25. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Yep, in other words, you've got nothing.

    26. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot. I have never heard the name mentioned on Fox News. Presumably because I don't get Fox News on my TV. Your not suggesting that Slashdot is an agent of the Secret Fox News Society are you? Besides, it isn't just when the name Soros comes up that "Fox New!" starts getting cried.

    27. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What I think is funny, and kinda sad, is how this will go on and on about "left VS right" when frankly neither one would piss on you if you were on fire. Bill Hicks nailed it when he said "Well I believe the puppet on the left shares MY beliefs, well I believe the puppet on the right has MY interests at heart......hey wait a minute, there's one guy controlling both puppets!

      Frankly it really doesn't matter anymore if left OR right is in control because the ultramegacorps are simply too powerful and the system too corrupt.Why do you think it hasn't mattered whether it was Bush or Obama, because both were/are dancing to the same tune! Bush handed out to his oil buddies, Obama is handing out to his buddies in green tech, SSDD. Bush kissed the MIC booty and got us involved in wars we had no business in, Obama kisses the MIC booty and gets us involved with a war we had no business being in, again SSDD. The faces change but the lobbyists don't.

      In the end BOTH sides will stuff their snouts into the trough and guzzle everything they can until there isn't a dime left to steal and the whole thing collapses and then BOTH sides will run from the trough squealing like the little piggies that they are, doing their damnedest to make sure its THEIR ass that doesn't end up being turned into bacon. Meanwhile the banks and ultramegacorps will laugh and play with their money like Scrooge fricking McDuck.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    28. Re:VOTE! "WHO'S WRECKING AMERIKKKA?" by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Bah Goldman Sachs has been playing the whole field since right after the civil war and there is a revolving door between GS and the halls of power. That bunch has their fingers in some many nasty deals I'd expect to see demons in 3 piece suits walking the halls like at Wolfram & Hart. The handful at the top are smart enough to not have their names in the papers, they just use names like Goldman Sachs to be a front for all their little games.

      Soros is a bit player compared to the old money, and politicians are just the dancing clowns, meant to keep us busy arguing about stupid shit. The real old money power brokers get enough inside information straight from the politicians and their fronts like GS that it doesn't matter if one government tanks or not, they have a nice "heads I win, tails you lose" setup going on. Must be nice to be able to gamble and make all the gains private and the losses public like that.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  38. the definition of "terrorism" by Suchetha · · Score: 1

    ... according to google is

    terrorism/terrizm/
    Noun:
    The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

    *The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.*

    how many governments does that definition cover?

    how many politicians?

    as someone who was born, (mostly) grew up in, and currently lives in, a country where the term "terrorism/terrorist" is used in SO many contexts - .lk for those who want to know (not .us like many would think) - the word "terrorism" is more accurately defined as "that guy over there that we don't agree with"..

    unfortunately, "terrorist" has become a new witch-hunt word - equal in power (or a VERY close second to "pedo")

    i think it is time that we ALL start identifying ourselves as terrorists.. because close to every political statement we make - including "seriously.. can you imagine life with THAT guy in office" while standing at the water cooler - can be construed as terrorism..

    this is one of the reasons that the UN has yet to define terrorism.. because if they were to do so, many - in fact, most - governments would fall under the "terrorist" definition.

    my advice; call, email, write a letter, send a pigeon to senator leiberman (and any others supporting this bill and tell them "you are not with us. you are not with the terrorists. you ARE a terrorist".. maybe they will get the clue

    Suchetha "why yes, i am a terrorist" Wijenayake

    --

    learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
    or one out of three ain't bad
    1. Re:the definition of "terrorism" by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      unfortunately, "terrorist" has become a new witch-hunt word - equal in power (or a VERY close second to "pedo")

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana.

      "Witch" in the 1600's.

      "Communist" in the 1950's.

      "Terrorist" from 2001-???

      And we keep repeating the same mistakes, over and over and over again.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  39. Trois-Rivières banned stoning by static416 · · Score: 1

    In 2007 a medium sized town in Quebec, with a muslim population of 0, explicitly banned stoning people to death.

    Because apparently the existing laws against murder and capital punishment didn't send the right message.

    It's the same concept here. Of course terrorism is already illegal, but that's not the point. Few politicians can resist any opportunity to publicly hate-monger and generate faux-controversy.

    1. Re:Trois-Rivières banned stoning by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      with a muslim population of 0

      How is that relative?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  40. O but think of the children .... by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    Seriously he is just the dealer at the Three Card Monte game the government(executive+legislative) is playing with the citizen's brain...
    On the red card we will fix the economy, but look at this nice "therorist" card...
    Not only do we not care, but anything we would do would just be to solve this issue we have:

    See people to find things like "bootleg blockbuster video" use various search engines...
    Now we would like to know exactly what was searched and found, with google or any other search engine..
    So if we can get a nice "tagging" law 'to save the children' there is no reason we can not also have a global "tag the content" law...
    do not forget that lieberman is a "Hollywood Democrat"

  41. Who are the fools who voted for him? by 3seas · · Score: 2

    This is the same fool who thought Julian Assange should be tried for Treason and still claims to have no clue as to what the Occupy Wall Street protest is about. Andf for those who want to play a fool, Its about getting corporate out of government. So say something and expose your ignorance and while you are at it, tell us, did you vote for Joe?

    I suspect he was one of the people in congress that participated in insider trading and has himself committed treason against the united states numerous times, as it is an age old trick to claim of another what you yourself are guilty of, in effort to hide your own guilt.

    Clearly he persist with proving he is not qualified to be in Government unless that position is as a sanitation worker.

    1. Re:Who are the fools who voted for him? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      No no no, he's clearly OVERqualified to be in Government.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  42. Youtube blocks porn and Blogger doesnt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just my 2 cents. Debate.

    1. Re:Youtube blocks porn and Blogger doesnt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Master Debator.

  43. I know what the Senator wants: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the Senator wants is a 'Snow' job

  44. Re:Guess the Party by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    if he was a Republican, all the trolls woulld be out about "OMG Republicans are teh evil."

    Your butthurt would be less funny if it wasn't below the posts calling Lieberman a Nazi and a terrorist.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  45. Re:Guess the Party by spidercoz · · Score: 2

    No, he's not. He jumped ship years ago and has been hanging with the reds while claiming to be "independent" ever since. He's full of shit and so are you.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  46. Finally, a warning of Christian Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now there can finally be a solution to warn people away from Christian Terrorist groups, like Operation Rescue, and the Christian militia groups who blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on 4/19/1995.

  47. Submit letter as evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I received such a letter, I would hold it and publicly state that I was ready, willing and able to submit it as evidence at impeachment. IANAL, is impeachment the proper procedure for somebody who fails to uphold their oath to uphold the Constitution, or is it something stronger?

  48. Re:Guess the Party by artor3 · · Score: 1

    No, he's an Independent. And it's not like he's independent in name only. He already screwed over the Dems and the country by joining the Repubs in filibustering a public option health care plan. That's why the trolls aren't out... because even the trolls know that he can't be attached to either party.

    Oh, except for you. Congratulations! You are officially the stupidest troll on Slashdot! Quite an honor, I'd say, as the competition is very fierce.

  49. Stalinism at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you don't remember: This is how Stalin worked:
    10 Randomly declare certain people the ones to direct the nation's hate at.
    20 Use hate to justify sending them to Guantanamo^WGulags.
    30 Consume (yes, consume, as in, use up until gone [in this case their life]) them by having them work for you to their death.
    40 GOTO 10

  50. wish in one hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he wants a "terrorist" label on certain blogs, i want an "asshole" label on certain cops. we all have wishes.

  51. In related news... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    ... Senator Deputy Dawg, I mean Joe Lieberman, sent a letter to ventriloquist Jeff Dunham about the puppet Achmed the Dead Terrorist who constantly threatens audience members with shouts of "Silence! I kill you!" Lieberman is concerned that comedy may be "adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online." The senator believes that Achmed's past appearance on Dunham's Very Special Christmas Special, where he sung a song called "Jingle Bombs," was morally unacceptable and contrary to the Christmas spirit.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  52. As opposed to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter violent Islamist extremism online.

    As opposed to the way the catholic religion is forced into schools and into laws, banning science, advocating ignorance and pure wishful thinking?

  53. Re:Guess the Party by McNally · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lieberman is a Democrat. Just saying, if he was a Republican, all the trolls woulld be out about "OMG Republicans are teh evil."

    He once was a Democrat but the last time he ran for office he was defeated in his party's primaries by a candidate that Connecticut Democrats apparently felt better reflected the values of their party. Subsequently Lieberman ran, and was re-elected as, an independent.

  54. Career Politicians = Political Products by denis-The-menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since career politicians are bought and sold should we refer to them for what they truly are: Political Products.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  55. Am I the only one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who thinks "violent Islamist extremism online" sounds like a cool concept for a FPS MMO game?

  56. So he is an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not an idiot, he just doesn't give a shit.

    Uh, then he is an idiot.

  57. The real terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is working tirelessly to undermine American values? Who is leading an assault on core principles of the constitution? Who is constantly finding ways to instill fear in patriotic Americans?

    Why, Joe! Have you looked in a mirror lately?

  58. Lieberman, king of Double Standards by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

    If Lieberman is so upset about Terrorist Content, has he seen the islamophobic drek that's rapidly growing in the US?

    Last year, WordPress.com deleted a blog after CAIR complained that it contained posts that advocated burning mosques, making false bomb threats implicating Muslims, desecrating Muslim graves, and that recommended the “proper way to shoot a muslim [sic].”

    Again, they're asking Wordpress to suspend the popular hate site Bare naked Islam. I love free speech, but this is one of those sites that inspires future Anders Breviks. It routinely calls to violence against American Muslims and supports desecrating mosques. “I want [Muslim] blood on my hands as a matter of principle” was one of their tamer comments I can post.

    I haven't seen Jose Pimentel's blog, but I'm sure it's tamer than hate sites like these that are flourishing.

  59. Re:Guess the Party by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

    Lieberman wasn't a democrat since he lost the party nomination to Ned Lamont in 2006. Since then, he endorsed John McCain and voted against Obama's policies.

  60. Terrorists have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear-mongering politician wants to ban terrorist content. Since he is helping to create the terror, can we flag all of his content as terrorist?

  61. Lieberman proves yet again... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    ...that he is clueless piece of trash. Same shit, different day. The only thing different is that there are, sadly, probably a few more of his peers who will be unable to bring themselves to break ranks and call this what it is, yet another erosion of our civil rights that will not a single fucking thing to keep us "safe from terrorists". Thank for nothing, again, Joe.

  62. Obligitory terrorist content... by msauve · · Score: 4, Funny

    BOO!

    Were you terrified?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Obligitory terrorist content... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      BOO!

      Were you terrified?

      Stay where you are. Agents will be with you shortly.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    2. Re:Obligitory terrorist content... by Guidii · · Score: 1

      Is it too late to post that as AC?

    3. Re:Obligitory terrorist content... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      No. Posting as AC would link you to all comments posted by AC, greatly increasing what you will be charged with.

      Of course, it'll totally be worth it for the laugh you get in court when they testify that one of your aliases is "Anonymous Coward".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Obligitory terrorist content... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grate you just caused them to spend another trillion dollars.

  63. Icon suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest a yellow star of David as the "terrorist" icon or "badge". Offending sites must wear/display it on the site's right "sleave".

  64. HAARP TESLA CHEMTRAILS EARTHQUAKES TSUNAMIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's going to label those with this technology at their fingertips, and who are actively using it along with the chemical cloud seeding for what they are doing to us all even as I write this?

  65. Real terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that Stpehen King is a real terrorist

  66. Of course... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    Because all terrorism stems only from Islam...

    /s...in case it's needed

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  67. The missing keyword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do believe SUSPECT is a key word in this. Meaning, he isn't proven to be in a court of law. Isn't that a founding item in the states, innocent until proven guilty?

  68. Is this some kind of Outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is our country becoming to now? do we need to bring in people from other countries because it is impossible to pass that test other than for immigrants.

  69. American Revolutionaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American revolutionaries are considered heroes today. But they were looked at as terrorists by the British at the time. It's a shame our representatives today have little knowledge or understanding of history.

    It's far better to think of the American Revolution as the Second English Civil War, because in a number of important ways that's exactly what it was....

  70. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets ban everyone that says a naughty word in every language. That way our children will be safe and we will never have gang violence, I mean until they see our corruption and hypocrisy.

  71. i wouldn't limit this to "islamists" by superwiz · · Score: 1

    Not that any group hell-bent on world domination through violent means is not dangerous, but the "islamists" are just not the only ones. There is plenty of pan-slavic sentiment that is encouraged in wink-wink-nodge-nodge style by the Russian government. I've seen a few Russian-language videos acting as plain terrorist-instruction manuals on YouTube. I am sorry, if someone thinks that it's "art" or some form of free expression, but when a video describes graphic details of how to create the most casualties in a crowded place and peppers the description with the enough "cool" factor, it makes a promotion of violence rather than just a description of violence. And helping out the people who promote senseless violence is just not the business that Google should be in.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  72. I'd like "Idiot" labels on Senators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everywhere a senator's name is mentioned these days, there's a label describing his political affiliation. I'd also like it if publications and search engines would also describe whether a senator fits into one of these categories:
    i) complete idiot
    c) has a bit of a clue
    s) may have had a clue, but is now just a sell-out

    The "c" label may in fact be unnecessary, since there is typically just a transition from "i" to "s" without passing "c" (for those that do, in fact, make it past "i").

  73. Re:Guess the Party by superwiz · · Score: 1

    No, he hasn't. He is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. He wouldn't fit in the modern Republican party by a long shot.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  74. Like the french aristocrats in 18th century eh ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

    They would suck the country dry, living lavishly, while people endured famine, legally had the right to rule and it was illegal to do anything to them, or against them.

    when the final famine ensued in between 1770-1780, things have changed. people started to insult, harass, and beat up aristocrats here and there. they were still living lavishly with their huge income derived from people, while being exempt from tax. then we know what happened.

    Current situation is not too different from how it was back in 1789.

  75. Remove the ban on YT by tsa · · Score: 1

    I suppose the best move by Google is now to remove the terrorist ban on YouTube, to restore consistency on its many platforms.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  76. I think by no-body · · Score: 1

    on some of those big-wigs or clowns (however label you may give them), the butt-holes are going OoOoOoO at some level and that's when they dream up that stuff.

    Politicians and other string pullers have no defense when a larger section of US population gets really pissed.

    I am surprised that nothing more is happening - how many people have lost their homes through foreclosure - Millions!

    The American Dream mass-hypnosis seems to be working very well.

  77. What are they going to do by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    When it comes time to stick that label on websites like whitehouse.gov and senate.gov for all the warmongering talk, illegal drone strikes, etc?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  78. thanks, connecticut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for returning senator lieberman to power time and time again.

    from the bottom of my heart.

  79. Cartoon Senator by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Joe is such a ridiculous self-parody. "I am a staunch East Coast Jewish liberal. Period. End of story. Wait... the Neo-Con war machine is taking over the Republican party so they can justify unlimited military spending by killing Arabs? I am a Republican."

    This story might as well read, "The Senator from Israel said today that Google is not doing enough to demonize heathen Muslims." The guy is a joke. A bitter, hateful, joke. I look forward to him being relegated to the same shelf of "famous people from our past that we're a little ashamed of" as Andrew Dice Clay.

  80. Define Terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you define terrorist text? Talking about a terrorist act is not the same thing as carrying out a terrorist act.

  81. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

    It's like watching "Brazil", as reimagined through "The Simpsons".

    And spoken like Droopy Dog.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  82. Liebermann! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only he could sniff out truffles as well as he can sniff out votes.

  83. I'm sure it's been posted by koan · · Score: 1

    The only issue I have with this is who decides what constitutes "terrorism" on the Internet?

    Frankly, if Google is going to "apply policy" to Youtube they should be consistent on said policy for all their platforms.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  84. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    Yup. Mr. Senator, if anything, you don't want to ban any terrorist content. Makes 'em easier to track, ya know? And here I thought that our government loved the ability to track the turrists.

  85. I am so Fscking Tired... by Genda · · Score: 1

    Of representatives who've sworn to uphold the Constitution, then promptly try to wipe the grubby asses with it. A new law needs to be passed that if ANY person in a position to make, pass or decide on a laws attempts to remove, diminish or expunge any right guaranteed by the Constitution, will immediately receive a full cavity search by a trained low land gorilla sans lubrication.

    I propose this on the obvious presumption that these people are trying to hide something foul by misdirecting the publics attention by making an unholy ruckus elsewhere.

  86. Lieberman : Tired, NOT wired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Lieberman guy is an obnoxious little noise-maker who wants to
    remove our freedoms of speech based on his personal notions of
    what should be "permitted".

    I don't think Lieberman is acting in a very American manner, myself.

    Maybe he would be better off in Israel, who are his de facto employer.

  87. Too Old, not Yet Wise by omb · · Score: 1

    These long term treason-ists who have presided over America's decline should all be facing long Jail time or a firing squad, Lieberman at the head of the list.

    These people have had decades in the Congress to protect and defend America but with their Liberal BS they did nothing, and they now want people to self censor.

    What about the first amendment do these idiots not understand, with the Internet they are afraid, deathly afraid that dissenters will be heard, and they will. We are in the middle of the Internet Reformation, just as when in 1450 Guttenberg started mass printing the Bible, and the authority of the Catholic heirarchy crumbled.

    The problem is that the Progressive Left is Pure of Heart, but as thick as two short planks and as the Tea Party wises up more and more ordinary citizens that they are regularly lied to, and stolen from by their own government terrorism will be the last thing they need to worry about. They just need to be attached to a tree or lamp post, with the hemp rope they despise; but In case of Emergency, steel cable or piano wire works too.

    MFG, omb

    Mit der Dummheit k&#228;mpfen G&#246;tter selbst vergebens - Friedrich Schiller

    1. Re:Too Old, not Yet Wise by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      Gutenberg, not "Guttenberg". Sorry if I seem pedantic, but for heaven's sake, please, don't confuse these two.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  88. Sure why not... by Genda · · Score: 1

    And while we're at it we should be able to "Idiot Labels" on Senators.

  89. Link to his blog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever I see something is censored (or someone is trying to censor it), I make a point to try and read it. Anyone got a link to this guy's blog? I haven't been able to find it on google yet.

    1. Re:Link to his blog? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like the original site, trueislam1.com has been taken down. No caches have been found as yet.

  90. Great! by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

    I want one, too! Can I preorder?

    --
    Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  91. No accident Lieberman is anti-Second Amendment by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Lifetime NRA rating of "F".

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  92. Which Terrorists by glorybe · · Score: 0

    The right wing in America are terrorists. They have caused pain. death and loss the majority of American people. If we were to ban terrorist sites the current House of Representatives would have to be called terrorists. Look at Rush Limbaugh asking the people in Congress to cripple the American economy so that the right wing could gather more power. Or how about Cain and his 999 nonsense? Is he more of a terrorist when he spouts that nonsense or when he is molesting women? Treason is where you find it.

  93. Better headline by Zorque · · Score: 1

    Blog Commenters Want "Deceased" Label on Senator

  94. Lieberman-pffffft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grew up a CT boy. I absolutely have no respect for Lieberman no matter the topic anymore. I'm glad he is leaving. He has, via his support for the republicans, helped in the stalemate of our (hopeful) progress in our country. I wish those of my home state had gotten rid of him the last time around.

  95. I've heard enough! Recall that fucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That slimy piece of shit fucking web terrorist.

    I see the sheeple still playing Left Right paradigm. You dorks better grow up quick now, times up.

    Lieberman isn't a D, R, or an I, he's an AIPAC, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Patriot Act loving Constitution hating, Global Carbon Tax/Climate Bull Oath Of Office breaking sold out piece of fucking shit And I don't even give a fuck if he's Jewish ( I Have many Jewish Friends) or not, he's a domestic terrorist in opposition of his oath!

    Go ahead and keep play these fucking retarded D vs R crap, I am a hair (of bad news/laws) from closing shop. my business, stop hiring, and horde with guns and food until this unregulated monetary shit blows over. You want to fucking blame someone you better start blaming the fucking government, and they better see some fucking jail cells soon, these corrupt motherfuckers like Lieberman are the one who are going to start a civil war.

    If you vote for this motherfucker again, you should know you are voting for a domestic terrorist who has a history of shredding the Constitution, so what political party do you belong to now?

  96. Shouldn't that be... by mmlado · · Score: 1

    to counter violent extremism online.

    I don't have any problem with islam, and think all violent extremism is equally bad.

  97. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    posibly hes just making sure that you can be charged - its why they ask you if your an agent of a foreign power when you enter the country. Or mor likely hes a senator kinsy grandstanding or looking for some pork from google in his state

  98. Cool by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    Cool. How do I sign up?

  99. Lieberman should not be taken seriously. by wezelboy · · Score: 1

    The guy is the biggest goniff in DC. The people of Connecticut should be ashamed.

  100. Re:The US Has Become a Cartoon-Parody of Police-St by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

    The Three Stooges version of 1984 already exists IIRC.

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  101. Beloved Terrorist Senator Joe Lieberman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beloved Terrorist Senator Joe Lieberman will retire soon.

    A welcomed event.

    A dirty Jo is just a dirty Jo ... as the Nazi's would say. And this Jo is the dirtiest.

    Bon Voyage.

    ++

  102. subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    I'd like to point out that Joe Lieberman is a fucking dipshit.

  103. RTFS, then follow the law by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    The second word of the summary is "suspect" ; it could equally well be "accused person" ; it is not "convicted person".

    I believe that the country being referred to has a constitutional principle that amounts to people being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Or has that constitution been superseded? And that would be the same constitution that bans the free expression of political opinion? Sorry, that should have been "permits", not "bans" ; a Freudian slit, if ever there was one.

    There is also no indication in TFS (I can't be bothered wasting my time on reading further about foreigner's inability to follow their own laws) that the disputed blog actually contains material that may be considered offensive. The commentary is about the blog being banned because the blogger is (allegedly) a terrorist. But TFS doesn't actually inform us whether the blog is bomb-making instructions, a list of the blogger's stamp collection, or the blogger's (constitutionally protected) free speech making a rational case for the introduction of Sharia law to the country. Or an irrational case for the unanaesthetised clitoridectomy of all bankers and sentators, regardless of their gender (which proposal might gain considerable popular support from the non-terrorist portion of the population).

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  104. Re:Guess the Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everyone turns into a libertarian when the internets are under attack.