Arizona Passes Sweeping Electronic Speech Censorship Bill

Koolthulu said:
Lawmakers should have to do jail time for making laws that a 2 year old knows violate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That would presume that lawmakers have a better understanding of the constitution than two-year-olds. I'm not convinced this is the case :p
 
So lets say there is a starbucks on the border of Arizona. I cross the border into Arizona and use the Wifi there to say troll someone. Then I step back over to the other border state. I can get charged for the fact that I used a global communication device inside of Arizona :LOL:

You must be trollin' if you think that could seriously be a state law HAHAHA
 
Cyraxx said:
So lets say there is a starbucks on the border of Arizona. I cross the border into Arizona and use the Wifi there to say troll someone. Then I step back over to the other border state. I can get charged for the fact that I used a global communication device inside of Arizona :LOL:

You must be trollin' if you think that could seriously be a state law HAHAHA
Click to expand...

This is Arizona Amigo. It already passed the legislature and is only 1 signature away from being state law.
 
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
 
Thuleman said:
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
Click to expand...

The Conservative and Republican line of thought that have come to represent the exact opposite of what they once stood for. Both Dems and Reps are aligning themselves with bigger government, the only difference is where the tax money goes.
 
Thuleman said:
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Yup - real conservatives don't like a single damn candidate this year other than maybe Ron Paul. Nevertheless, real conservatives are against what "Republican" labeled politicians have been trying to pass recently.
 
Cyraxx said:
Yup - real conservatives don't like a single damn candidate this year other than maybe Ron Paul. Nevertheless, real conservatives are against what "Republican" labeled politicians have been trying to pass recently.
Click to expand...

Define "conservative". Political conservatives might like Ron Paul, social conservatives don't want Paul near the POTUS chair.
 
Social conservatives don't really count for anything, they are the hillbillies of our times. Today it's all about economy and defense, and the whole marriage, sexual orientation, and abortion issue isn't stuff people care about when they are about to lose their homes and fall into poverty.
 
Thuleman said:
Social conservatives don't really count for anything, they are the hillbillies of our times. Today it's all about economy and defense, and the whole marriage, sexual orientation, and abortion issue isn't stuff people care about when they are about to lose their homes and fall into poverty.
Click to expand...

Meh, I disagree, but that is another thread for another time.
 
Conservatism is simple: Less Government. More Power to the people - more control of the government.

Like Ron Paul's Stance I am with him: Abortion, Marriage, Sexual Orientation, etc.. etc... have nothing to do with politics. If that is what determines who you vote for, you are a dumbass. Period.
 
Thuleman said:
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much just one party these days. Republicans = Democrats.
 
avatardelta said:
Be fair to attorneys.

They're paid by other people to fuck shit up, they're just doing their job.
Click to expand...

QTFT
I don't know of any door to door attorneys begging people to support their 'cause' People pay attorneys to WIN for them, using any tactic and loophole possible.
 
6 R sponsors and 3 D sponsors in the house bill, so it appears to be a bipartisan fuckup.
 
I too Live in AZ, and have to check daily for the idiotic things our congress does, just so I can stay legal.
 
Skripka said:
Define "conservative". Political conservatives might like Ron Paul, social conservatives don't want Paul near the POTUS chair.
Click to expand...

The term Conservative, and more aptly its definition dating back thru US history, wouldn't allow for something like "Social Conservative" to exist. Real Conservatives allowed the States to make decisions on such manners with the Government only stepping in where Constitutional barriers were crossed. If you want to abort a baby in Maine a person in Texas should have no say on the matter because it's not and shouldn't be a Federal matter. See what I mean?

There's maybe 2 Conservatives in the whole Republican Party and they're often ignored for being too radical... give me a break.
 
Cyraxx said:
So lets say there is a starbucks on the border of Arizona. I cross the border into Arizona and use the Wifi there to say troll someone. Then I step back over to the other border state. I can get charged for the fact that I used a global communication device inside of Arizona :LOL:

You must be trollin' if you think that could seriously be a state law HAHAHA
Click to expand...

As I understand according to this law, if you use the internet to upset anyone anywhere in the world, you could be brought up on charges in Arizona.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038569507 said:
As I understand according to this law, if you use the internet to upset anyone anywhere in the world, you could be brought up on charges in Arizona.
Click to expand...

Only if you and the offended are in Arizona probably is the only way this will stand a chance in a courtroom. If a crime crosses state lines it becomes a matter for the feds, and there's no federal law for this (yet, thank goodness).
 
Thuleman said:
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
Click to expand...

GOP = Opposes government intrusion in your life when it comes to taxation and regulation, but encourages draconian legislation when it comes to law enforcement and the courts.

Dems = Support intrusion in your life in the form of regulation and taxation (as long as you are wealthy), but oppose unfair intrusion in your life from law enforcement and the courts.

Libertarians = The ones who both support justice (due process, legal rights, etc.) AND limited taxation and regulation at the same time.

Too bad most Libertarians are so damned crazy, or I'd totally be on board.

Ron Paul usually makes a lot of sense up until he says something crazy like he wants to abolish the Fed and reenact the gold standard which makes you have to roll your eyes again...

In all honesty though, they are all closer together than they are apart.
 
Falling Anvil said:
More to the point, I wonder when they'll make a new Constitution that is more specific and uses more up to date language than what they were using 230 years ago.

I've heard South Africa has a pretty bitchin' one. Maybe Zuma ain't the best but their Constitution is allegedly pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

Amusing fact:

Centuries ago, Willie Shakespeare had a working vocabulary that was nearly ten times what the average person uses today.

http://quotations.about.com/b/2006/04/22/shakespeare-had-some-vocabulary.htm
 
Oh, and some of you still think I am a 14 year old Che Guevara wannabe? Wake up you dumb fucks.
 
Thuleman said:
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
Click to expand...

This has been the case for a long time. Party doesn't matter most democrats and republicans are more or less the same. They're all sucking the same dick for campaign funds. There are minor differences hear and there, but there are two thing almost all politicians want. To be reelected and more power over US. There are very few that aren't like this, but they usually fit better in a third party better than they fit as a republican or democrat. Such as Ron Paul. He pretty much fits as a libertarian to the T, but is forced to be part of the republican party to be relevant; because of our screwed up 2 party system. The only thing he seems to want is to get the federal government the heck out of our lives and for that he gets my full support even if I have to right his name onto the ballot.
 
Thuleman said:
What I find puzzling is that a GOP run state passes such intrusion of government into private lives bill. Conservatives are supposed to protect me from the government, not extend its reach into my private live. Go figure.
Click to expand...

The conservative movement has never truly been about small government or less intrusion into private lives. Those are feel good talking points that joe-average eats up like they mean something. The specter of overbearing government is largely a concoction designed to distract the underclasses in order to more effectively exploit them. The genius of it is that the right created an army of true believers out of a portion of the American public who sincerely feel that their government is one executive order away from bashing their doors in to take away their guns and put them in a welfare line.

Cyraxx said:
Like Ron Paul's Stance I am with him: Abortion, Marriage, Sexual Orientation, etc.. etc... have nothing to do with politics. If that is what determines who you vote for, you are a dumbass. Period.
Click to expand...

That's not Ron Paul's stance at all. When asked, he's repeatedly said all of those things should be decided at the state level. Meaning he doesn't actually care about the liberties of free people, but that he has some misguided and irrational fetish of dismantling federalism. And for what? So that the United States can become a 3rd world of fueding little libertopias too dysfunctional to accomplish anything? Despite what Paul might say on the stump, his brand of conservatism encourages social repression and control to flourish at the state level because they know that a majority of Americans won't have it. Some people hear and respond to the code words about small government and personal liberty without stopping to think about the ineffective, inequitable, and disjointed system of competing states that libertarianism ultimately would reduce us to.
 
First they attack the educated "snobs" and say how unimportant an education is (while these same politicians send their kids to college). Then they try to pass this bill thinking their constituents are stupid enough to let it go.

Arizonans need to step up and fight this.
 
Hamish Campbell said:
The conservative movement has never truly been about small government or less intrusion into private lives. Those are feel good talking points that joe-average eats up like they mean something. The specter of overbearing government is largely a concoction designed to distract the underclasses in order to more effectively exploit them. The genius of it is that the right created an army of true believers out of a portion of the American public who sincerely feel that their government is one executive order away from bashing their doors in to take away their guns and put them in a welfare line.



That's not Ron Paul's stance at all. When asked, he's repeatedly said all of those things should be decided at the state level. Meaning he doesn't actually care about the liberties of free people, but that he has some misguided and irrational fetish of dismantling federalism. And for what? So that the United States can become a 3rd world of fueding little libertopias too dysfunctional to accomplish anything? Despite what Paul might say on the stump, his brand of conservatism encourages social repression and control to flourish at the state level because they know that a majority of Americans won't have it. Some people hear and respond to the code words about small government and personal liberty without stopping to think about the ineffective, inequitable, and disjointed system of competing states that libertarianism ultimately would reduce us to.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's ideas are good for the most part, but he's appealing to the wrong base. He can actually bring the independents and moderates toward him if he threw away some of his extreme right views. Otherwise, he's unelectable and only serves to campaign as a way to message his ideas.
 
ondaedg said:
Ron Paul's ideas are good for the most part, but he's appealing to the wrong base. He can actually bring the independents and moderates toward him if he threw away some of his extreme right views. Otherwise, he's unelectable and only serves to campaign as a way to message his ideas.
Click to expand...

I challenge that. I've heard two things out of him that I'd consider to be good ideas. The first being reduced military spending, especially for commitments abroad. Not because I'm an isolationist or for less spending in general (I'm a staunch Keynesian), but because we may as well be tossing that economic productivity down a well. The other being eventually decriminalizing personal marijuana use nationally.

It's like they say though, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
Jesus, I am seriously starting to think maybe I was NOT lucky to have been born in the USA.

WTF? Is this a bad dream?

This is scarier than it was watching the 2nd plane hit, in person, during 9/11... Also, much more of a threat to our country than those two airplanes were.

The Dept. Of Homeland Security needs to step in and flush that garbage bill down the toilet!
 
Wait - this article must have been posted April 1st, right? It's a joke, right? Can't be real, I don't believe it.

:confused:
 
That's if they get better at all.


Life sucks, deal with it is all you got, or revolution. Take your pick.
 
Serpent said:
That's if they get better at all.


Life sucks, deal with it is all you got, or revolution. Take your pick.
Click to expand...
It'd be curious to see how far things go before something/someone steps up. Hopefully long before I'm gone but the way these things have been going lately, I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
Oh and by the way, the gold standard doesn't actually mean we use gold as currency. But it means money has to be comparable to gold.

So if the government has a billion dollars in gold. Every dollar will only equal to that amount of money no matter what. At least that's how I understand it. I don't see why people think there is something wrong with that, it basically means, this is all you got, and you can't make value out of thin air. (By you, I can mean you, but I mostly mean government.)
 
Malkizadek said:
I just got off the phone with the GOVERNOR JANICE K. BREWER's assistant @ 602- 542-4331 option 4. I let them know that this is in violation of the constitution that allows FREE SPEECH, 1st amendment of the Constitution. I highly recommend you guys do the same. Call and tell her to OPPOSE the HB 2549 if you want a chance to kill this. We killed the SOPA/PIPA bill so let's do it again here.

Here is the Constitutional amendment they are trying to eliminate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If you do not make the call, who will?
Click to expand...

Ask not...what your country can do for you... ask what you can do for your country.
 
Serpent said:
Oh and by the way, the gold standard doesn't actually mean we use gold as currency. But it means money has to be comparable to gold.

So if the government has a billion dollars in gold. Every dollar will only equal to that amount of money no matter what. At least that's how I understand it. I don't see why people think there is something wrong with that, it basically means, this is all you got, and you can't make value out of thin air. (By you, I can mean you, but I mostly mean government.)
Click to expand...

Um because our entire economy, governmental/corporate/private from the ground up is built on credit. For better or worse.

That is why. Take a macro economics course to learn all about why all the ranting about "if my household was run like the government" comparisons are made with little grasp of macroeconomics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top