Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/1/04 06:17 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/1/04 05:22 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: But the Democrats aren't supporting it, that's the thing about it. They are neither supporting it nor prohibiting it.

Yes they are. It's the McCain-Feingold law. Guess what party Feingold is a part of?

Dude I was talking about the ad bashing bush, not the bill.

How can electromagnetic waves be public property? Don't you need something to convert that to hear it? Does everyone in the public somehow have a converter built into their ears that they could miraculous hear everything that is said?

ooh second_sun burned you...

At 4/1/04 04:49 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Everyone has to follow the laws, even the Democrats. Personally, I don't like the election reform law, I think it violates free speech. But unless the Democrats want to get rid of that law, they've got to follow it.

But the Democrats aren't supporting it, that's the thing about it. They are neither supporting it nor prohibiting it.

Woh, usually people don't respond too quickly about stuff, and at about the same time.

Ahh don't use the slippery slope excuse for this thing. Sure the FCC is going overboard, but it won't have a say on the internet, or at least hopefully.

By the way, I signed it.

Link: CNN

When has free speech crossed the line of soft money? Why are the Republicans bitching about a group that is speaking against them? Also, a group of one of this big group also tried to get an advertisement during the Superbowl, which didn't happen because the company that did the Superbowl doesn't allow anything political as an advertisement.

Really, please read the article and don't be lazy. At the very least read the first 4 paragraphs.

Link: CNN
Article:

VIENNA, Austria (Reuters) - OPEC agreed Wednesday to endorse tighter curbs on oil production, ignoring concerns in some countries about crude oil prices near their highest level in 13 years, ministers said.

On top of that, the group is already leaking more than a million barrels daily above existing March quota limits of 24.5 million barrels a day.

High costs already minus less supply means an even higher price. What made this current gas prices to go skyrocketing? The cold winter? Probably not because gasoline is made from a different part of crude oil than kerosene and propane? Price gouging? Possibly....

At 3/31/04 06:16 PM, Ruination wrote: Haitians, not mexicans Raven. Mexicans are descendants of civilized people, at least.

Oh, my bad, I thought you guys were still talking about mexicans. As for Haitians, I don't know anything about them and their habits once they immigrate into the US.

At 3/31/04 06:09 PM, Ruination wrote: On my own person experience. My city is beginning to look like some hole in the ground thanks to them. Our government is too weak to admit they made a mistake in letting such a group in. Most of them simply live the rest of their lives feeding off of our welfare system, raising their children to do the same. The majority of petty crimes in my region is attributed to them. Its a spreading cancer.

But that there is generalization. Sure some do that, but a lot of the mexicans are hard workers. Imagine laying grass down at 100+ degrees with 80% humidity. They go along with their job without arguing, unlike most white people. Some, yes some, do cheat the system with welfare but not all of them, and it seems your state needs to improvise the welfare system since it isn't working that well if people are able to use it like that.

At 3/30/04 08:17 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 3/30/04 07:27 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: Wrong, only about 8% of all immigrants speak english even in their own homes. Review some of my early posts and you'll see some other info.

You never provided a source, and also the info that I have checked from you has been totally wrong. I'm the only one who has provided sources throughout this topic.

Well, saying that my friend is French, and he only speaks french to his family, I would say that he is about right saying that 8% of immigrants that come into this country only speak their native languages in their home.

They not only don't pay taxes and steal our health care and welfare

Illegal immigrants don't get welfare. You need a social security card, etc., to get welfare.

But yet to deport them it costs a bundle for us, I'll get a source if you need be.

This part is speculation. Wouldn't they get welfare if they came into this country and had a child? I think then they would be eligible for welfare since they are the parents of a US citizen.

They accept American jobs and American economic success but reject our culture.

Naw. You have yet to provide any credible source that they reject 'our culture'.

Do you need prove that the earth is down and the sky is up? If you are around mainly the mexicans you will see they are keeping their Mexican nationality strong. They are not assimilating like other immigrants that have come into this country. If they don't assimilate, then we are end up going to have a situation like the Balkans. If they do, then we need not worry.

Are you aware that the U.S census recentley released info stating that by 2050 c.e , the amount of Hispanics in the country will triple?

That still wouldn't make them a majority. You're proving yourself wrong.

It'd make them larger than the black population and asian population combined.

The immigrants have much more children than the current citizens do, another U.S census research result.

You never provided a source, and I just did the old census routine for another topic. I'm not about to go do it again so soon. Provide sources for godsake.

This I'd have to agree with whoever is always the second quote. I mean Catholics fuck like crazy. This family has 9 children and probably another one coming.

At 3/30/04 07:32 PM, Ruination wrote: I'm sorry for sounding a little discriminatory here, but people coming from the stinking rot holes of Haiti aren't very industrious.

So. What's your proof of this?

Irregardless, we're turning Haitian refugees away by the droves. Similar to European Jews in the '30's and '40's....

Really dude, why make this comparison between Jews and Haitians? History in that part will not repeat itself.

Didn't they come out with the V-Chip yet? Why hasn't the FCC required that yet in all TV's so that people can choose what they want censored instead of the government deciding it for them?

If's are what created this nation. What if the people could vote? What if etc. etc. I ask it because it can happen. And if it can happen and it's not unconstitutional, than it should be allowed to occur.

Really, if someone doesn't like what someone is talking about, they can easily change the channel. No harm done to them. People that don't like it and listen to it are total dumbasses, which make up a good part of the USA....

But really, Howard Stern was fined because he was talking about sex, he did not say any swear words. That is something that you are preaching about, that sex and drugs should be allowed, but not the 7 no-no words.

Hmm, Kucinich I do not favor because he would fail horribly in balancing the budget. This is a good example of what he'd do. Insurance is a multi billion dollar sector of the economy. So basically we'd have the government pay for insurance so that the citizens can pay 1 dollar less for administrative costs? That to me is silly and plain retarded. The government should have a minimal impact on the economy. The only thing the government should do is try to prevent a recession, not create one by destroying a huge sector of the economy.

At 3/25/04 11:47 PM, The_Someone wrote: Ridiculous...

I never said sex and drugs should be censored.
I said that the 7 words that the FCC has censore (bitch,fuck,n-word,shit,ass,something else) should stay censored because no one needs them really.

You werern't arguing about that two seconds ago. But shit is censored? WTF? That's completely retarded. So "I just shit my pants" will get a fine from the FCC? Also, "My ass hurts from sitting" will get a fine from the FCC?

At 3/24/04 11:00 PM, The_Someone wrote: You'd be surprised how many suburban white kids listen to howard stern.

Source?

. How can I child stay normal if he is blocked off all current events. I mean, he woulnd't be able to listen to the radio, the tv, read the news (okay they dont read anyways, little brats)...

This brings up an interesting idea. If a child doesn't know, then it can't hurt him. It will only hurt him when he finds out. Like in the book "The Giver," the child in the end went off from the place he has know all of his life after being given all of the information about the world.

Also, how many radio stations are there in the United States? How many of them have Howard Stern? How many have MPR news (I think that's what its called)? I think it's irrational for you to come to the conclusion that if you allow no censorship at all that that all that will become of it would be Talk Show hosts babbling about sex and drugs. If you do actually think that, then you have some misperceptions of the world and you may need to talk to a shrink. Control on electromagnetic waves seems so silly to me. You actually need to have something on the other end to receive it, it's not like someone is yelling it down the street.

You're still not trying.

You're still not thinking.

You're obviously not a parent so shut the fuck up.

And at 20 years old you are?

So, should children be deprived of radio because some shit fucks want to hear their news host swear? I don't think so.

Do the 12.5 million fanbase of Howard Stern want some fuckhead depriving them of their show because of some parents that can't parent or tell the truth to their children? I don't think so.

"Thou shall not lie" is a part of the Commandments, and parents lie to their children about how babies come into this world, kind of hypocritical because most Americans are Catholic, isn't it? Why is the person that the parents look down upon when the talk show host is actually doing the right thing by not lying about sex?

At 3/24/04 09:18 PM, crass_clock wrote: (Little Story from some Churchill person)
Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

You can look at it two ways. That the mexicans are coming in just like the Europeans did and are going to take over the land forcing everyone else to go into the ghettoes. The other way, which doesn't really fit with the story because we are are not going into Mexico, is that we assimilate the mexicans(look up assimilate if you don't know what it is).

When presented with a problem, think of every aspect possible, even the side that you know you would never support.

At 3/24/04 10:46 PM, The_Someone wrote: The Government is only doing what concerned parents want.

It's not called governting, it's called parenting!

At 3/23/04 10:07 PM, The_Someone wrote: You people must realize that it is 100% percent natural for parents to want to protect their youth. When A child is growing up, he is building his mind and judging what is right or wrong. If a child gets the idea that saying fuck, shit, bitch, and the dreaded n-word is normal, he will be unsuccesful fo the rest of his life.

If parents want their children to not have bad influences, then they should turn off the radio, it's that simple. Parenting should be taken upon by the parents not by a coorperation nor government, thus the word parent in parenting.

Anyways, really, who listens to the radio today besides adults that drive? Children don't listen to the radio because there is no need for them to. The only time they would listen to the radio is if an adult is nearby, which is likely to be in a child care center, and more likely they would have on soft music. Teenagers will more likely listen to the radio a lot more because they are able to drive. By this time their ideas and opinions have been pretty well made, and they know right from wrong.

You know what ravens? you convinced me. Common, lets sue the shit out of every single school in america for having a dress code or preventing children to cuss and insult children. Let sue the shit out of every reality tv show for bleeping out cuss words. Lets sue the shit out of every parent who told their kids not use fould language. Lets sue the shit out of every human who has told another to shut up (he attacked his freedom of speech). Lets sue the shit out of every reasonable and loving parent who is for censorship. Comon! Whatchyou waiting for? We could make a shit load of money don't you think? ANd we'll be all over the news, cussing our asses off on camera, and then suing them for bleeping them out. :) ;) :)

Dude, did I say that we need to sue people? Really all I said is something needs to change.

Lets sue the shit out of every human who has told another to shut up (he attacked his freedom of speech).

He told him the person to shut up, which is his freedom of speech. Also, the person did not have to shut up when he was told to shut up.

Lets sue the shit out of every reasonable and loving parent who is for censorship.

Ooh funny story on this lil topic. My friend's next door neighbor is Mormon. They, if you don't already know, are extremely strict on everything that they do. I mean they can't even drink coffee because it contains caffeine! Well, anyways, when this mormon chick was in 9th grade (She was homeschooled up until high school) and they were reading about a poem about a woman cheating on his husband (Well obviously that meant sex if you haven't come to that conclusion yet). The chick went absolutely berserk. She had her hand over her ears and started to mumble. Now, if that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

At 3/23/04 09:49 PM, The_Someone wrote: Idiot.

You sign a contract with whomever employs you.

But isn't the reason that the employer puts that into the contract is so that they don't get fined by the FCC? Dam, hook line and sinker.

yes, fuck off does have more effect. But the question is do you need that effect to express yourself?

In some cases, yes you do need that extra to express yourself.

Alright I was bored so I ended watching C-SPAN, yes that sort of did make it a little worse. But there was this one thing that the Republica from Wisconsin brought up. That Congress makes a budget resolution, but does not have to adhere to this budget throughout the year. There are many work arounds for it. For instance, a couple years ago there was a flood somewhere and they built a 2 million dollar mansion on top of a mountain. Did the mansion get damaged and insurance wouldn't cover it or something?

Another thing that was brought up was the ability to hide special interests into different bills. One was a bill that was being brought up in the Labor Department(I'm going off of memory here so bear with me) that somehow included a Rain Forest Museum in Idaho that costs around 50 million. Now really, how are those two things related? This by the way was rejected, there was a vote in December which rejected it.

But really, is that alright that certain projects are able to be hidden behind bills and acts so that they can get certain projects created, even though it has no coorelation with what the bill is?

At 3/23/04 09:36 PM, The_Someone wrote: Christmas is more of an american holiday than a christian holiday, but should we force the jews to give up hannukah because its not american tradition?

But Jewish people still celebrate Christmas, do they not?

At 3/23/04 09:13 PM, The_Someone wrote: You also keep ignoring the fact that Radio hosts ahve accepted this in a contract and that their is no point in complaining.

A contract with whom? The government? So that the government can take away how they can speak? There are couple ways you can say things. There is how you say it, there is what you say, and there is where you say it. Basically like in a triangle, if you limit one of these you limit free speech. Don't think so? What if I said "Fuck off" instead of "Leave?" Different saying, same message, but the first one seems to have a lasting effect on people and gets your idea off a little bit better. So basically, your saying the government requires Talk Show hosts to sign an agreement that limits their free speech? Is this constitutional?

And by the way, in your quote, it should be "there" instead of "their."

Basically this topic is going to be about large coorperations and their political ties, and whether or not it is correct to have a coorperation talk about politics instead of the individual.

Yahoo! News

Just in case the link get's fudged up later on, here's the article

Clear Channel, rejecting Howard Stern's claims that he was canned for slamming President Bush (news - web sites), says its radio network does not have a political agenda.

But new political contribution data tell a different story about Clear Channel (CCU) executives. They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) in the 2004 race.

What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In contrast, Viacom (VIA) executives and its political action committee gave just 30% of their $545,650 to Republican candidates. Viacom syndicates Stern's show.

Clear Channel says it suspended talk-show king Stern from six stations Feb. 24 because of his show's racy content - not because of politics. "We are simply trying to comply" with anti-indecency laws, says Andy Levin, executive vice president. Since his suspension, Stern, who has 8 million listeners, has boosted his attacks on Bush and on Clear Channel officials, who he says favor Bush.

The No. 1 radio network and other media are under election year pressure by Bush administration regulators and Congress to ban broadcast indecency. Clear Channel faces a proposed $755,000 Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) fine over a Tampa radio show host's sexually explicit high jinks. The network fired host Todd Clem, known as "Bubba the Love Sponge," last month.

Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays and his sons led the campaign giving. Mays gave $12,500 to the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) in September. He gave $2,000 to Bush in July. President Mark Mays and Chief Financial Officer Randall Mays each gave $2,000 to Bush last year, as well. Levin says these gifts reflect a fact of political life - that companies tend to favor the party in power.

Clear Channel, based in San Antonio, has grown rapidly since Lowry Mays started the company 30 years ago. It has 180 million weekly listeners and 1,200 stations, up from about 200 stations five years ago.

Critics worry that its airwave dominance will stifle diversity of broadcast views as the FCC (news - web sites), Congress and the courts debate restricting radio ownership. "When they are that powerful and they have a political track record, it can make one uneasy," says Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a watchdog group.

Still, given Stern's famously off-color programming, it's just as likely Clear Channel dumped him as a fast sacrifice to Congress' decency campaign, says Jeff Chester, executive director of the watchdog Center for Digital Democracy.

"They needed to do some kind of modest bloodletting to try to derail this stampede," Chester says.

end article

What bothers me is the fact that it appears that the restrictions put upon Clear Channel by the FCC and Bush is making the Execs of CC to kiss Republicans asses. Also, it seemed in the article that Viacom had a political action committe, which is generally Democratic, is this correct to have? A committee by a large coorperation to influence politics that affect the people?

At 3/21/04 02:10 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: Their population in the country is skyrocketing, about 40 million currently, including some 8 million illegal immagrants.

Ooh funny thing about some illegal immigrants in my area... Has anybody heard about the 265 million jackpot that was won over in Stephens City, VA? Well, the thing is the person that won that is an illegal immigrant and he can't cash it in until he gets a green card. The reason that I know? I live 10 minutes away from Stephens City.

Source

Article from CNN.com taken just in case the link gets broken later on, scroll down if you don't feel like reading it or already clicked on the link

SAN JOSE, California (AP) -- Before 8x8 Inc. launched an Internet phone service in late 2002, it drafted a business plan, set up its equipment, posted a Web site and began taking orders from customers. As with most online ventures, U.S. government approval wasn't needed.

That would change if the Department of Justice succeeds at persuading federal regulators to require new online communications services -- such as Internet calling -- to comply with wiretapping laws.

Critics, including some online businesses that are working with authorities to make their services wiretap-capable, say the DOJ proposal isn't just unprecedented and overzealous but also dangerously impractical.

It would chill innovation, they say, invade privacy and drive businesses outside the United States.

"No one in the Internet world is going to support this," said Bryan Martin, chief executive of 8x8, which sells the Packet8 phone service. "It's counter to everything we've done to date in terms of building the Internet as a free, anonymous and creative place."

The Justice Department, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration are seeking what they call a clarification to an existing wiretap law called the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA).

The 1994 law requires telecommunications carriers to ensure equipment is capable of being tapped when there's a lawful order. It did not expand wiretap authority but tried to ensure that new technologies are capable of intercepting calls on par with the regular phone network.

The Justice Department says that, as the very nature of telecommunications changes, it's simply not working.

Without citing examples, the agency's lawyers say some providers of new communications services aren't complying and, as a result, surveillance targets are being lost and investigations hindered.

"These problems are real, not hypothetical, and their impact on the ability of ... law enforcement to protect the public is growing with each passing day," according to a petition sent to the Federal Communications Commission last week signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John G. Malcolm and colleagues from the FBI and DEA.

The petition seeks a rule stating that high-speed Internet access providers are covered by the wiretap law -- as well as communications services that displace traditional phone companies.

It argues, in effect, for establishing a government approval process that would be required before any new communications services launch.

"If the FBI had this power all along, would we even have the Internet today?" said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

At the crux of the debate is the fact that communications technologies once tied to telephone carriers' circuit-switched networks are no longer necessarily so.

Critics say the petition violates the spirit of the original law by seeking to broaden the definition of "communications carriers" to include what amount to information service providers.

The law thus could apply not only Internet phone systems but also to voice-enabled instant messaging, email and even gaming consoles -- anything that could replace old fashion phone calls.

Currently, the debate is centered on Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) services, an increasingly popular technology that converts voice calls into data packets and streams them over the Internet.

In some cases, wiretapping simply isn't possible. In others, it appears to be but hasn't been fully tested. In all cases, companies say they don't want to trot out new services through the federal bureaucracy before releasing them.

"Let's just say if I had to get prior approval from this government, I probably would have taken my services to other governments," said Jeff Pulver, founder of Free World Dialup. "If I have an idea, I go for it, I build it up and I do it. Getting permission -- I stopped doing that a long time ago."

Pulver's service, which amounts to a directory service that links callers but doesn't carry the stream of bits from conversations, doesn't support wiretaps. But such calls could be captured by a caller's Internet service provider, he said.

When he gets valid subpoenas or court orders, Pulver said he supplies information to authorities. But companies outside the United States would not have to cooperate.

He mentioned Skype, a peer-to-peer-based telephony service with offices in Estonia and Sweden. Unlike major U.S. providers, Skype scrambles conversations, making it nearly impossible to decipher conversations quickly. Skype spokeswoman Kat James, reached via email, declined to comment.

Even VoIP companies like 8x8 and Vonage that are capable of -- and willing to comply with -- legal wiretap orders say the petition oversteps its bounds.

Justice Department officials declined to comment beyond the filing, which requested and appears to have received expedited review by the FCC. The deadline for the first round of comments is set for April 12.

"It's quite a breathtaking petition, not only in terms of the scope of coverage but also in the ambition of the legal argument," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "They seem to feel that they can get the FCC to give them what they want without having to go back to Congress."

As well, a dangerous precedent would be set by broadening the law so that it keeps up with future technologies before they're created.

"I think you'll start to see applications which have voice components but are not traditionally voice-replacement telephone services," Pulver said. "Does the FBI really want Xbox Live to be tapped?"

End Article, beginning question

Do you think the Department of Justice has a right to do this without going through Congress?

and which part now suspends habeas corpus? I'm interested in this one the most....

Those are relating to terrorism and computer fraud, those things would have to be proven in order for them to use the information received from it in order to be used against you in the court of law. But like I said earlier, they have already been using wire taps and the etc. for awhile now, this has just extended it into the electronic arena.

Well I think the post maker basically thought that the immigrants are basically making America an extension of Mexico, that's my interpretation of his thoughts.

BCC, which section of the article allows communications to be intercepted? I'm quite sure this has been done even before the Patriot Act. I mean look at John Gotti and how they were able to finally get him down, they bugged his place and intercepted his communications. This was well before any "Patriot Act." Also, which section allows for a suspension of Habeas Corpus?