Comments on: Response to Christian Coalition-NARAL call for net neutrality regs

By: buy levitra

buy levitra — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:43:15 +0000

My husband took this for the first time last night. I am a very satisfied wife today. His confidence is the best part. Works great. He had a little headache today but worth it for him.

By: buy levitra

buy levitra — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:43:15 +0000

My husband took this for the first time last night. I am a very satisfied wife today. His confidence is the best part. Works great. He had a little headache today but worth it for him.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:07:16 +0000

enigma_foundry... What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you understand?? Net neutrality regulation IS regulation. The First Amendment, by contrast, keeps us free of tyrannical government regulation. Net neutrality requires government coercion; the First Amendment does not. Under Net neutrality regulation, people and companies could be fined or go to jail for violating FCC regulation. The First Amendment, by contrast, shields private citizens and companies from fines and jail time.

Please don't insult the founders (or our intelligence) by equating the tyranny of Net neutrality regulation with the liberty-enhancing beauty of the First Amendment.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:07:16 +0000

Please don't insult the founders (or our intelligence) by equating the tyranny of Net neutrality regulation with the liberty-enhancing beauty of the First Amendment.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:12:09 +0000

Incidently, also very broken is the attempt to split the left and the right on this issue--which Adam is shamelessly trying to do here.

It is not left or right, but a basic issue of freedom and human rights.

Net neutrality is to today what the First Amendment was to the founding of America.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:07:07 +0000

The analogy of net neutrality with the fairness doctrine is deeply broken.

First, the fairness doctrine imposed a duty to promote actively a certain point of view, on a media that was inherently limited, and controlled centrally.

Net neutrality, however, would prevent entities from actively suppressing freedom of speech, (as Comcast was recently caught doing) and keep the control of the web where it belongs--in the hands of the users, the people. To do otherwise would resign ourselves to central control and limit the web in ways we should not.

Net neutrality is the way to keep computers in the control of the users, and those who do not advocate net neutrality are really allowing the freedom that the PC has brought us to be throttled back.

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:12:09 +0000

Incidently, also very broken is the attempt to split the left and the right on this issue--which Adam is shamelessly trying to do here.

It is not left or right, but a basic issue of freedom and human rights.

Net neutrality is to today what the First Amendment was to the founding of America.

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:07:07 +0000

The analogy of net neutrality with the fairness doctrine is deeply broken.

First, the fairness doctrine imposed a duty to promote actively a certain point of view, on a media that was inherently limited, and controlled centrally.

Net neutrality, however, would prevent entities from actively suppressing freedom of speech, (as Comcast was recently caught doing) and keep the control of the web where it belongs--in the hands of the users, the people. To do otherwise would resign ourselves to central control and limit the web in ways we should not.

Net neutrality is the way to keep computers in the control of the users, and those who do not advocate net neutrality are really allowing the freedom that the PC has brought us to be throttled back.

By: Froggy Doggy

Froggy Doggy — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:45:02 +0000

So kids 11-14 can get birth control pills without Mom and Dad knowing in a Maine Middle School? Wait...was that 11 years old???? Huh? I mean is it really 11 years old?

One thing that's increasingly irritated me for about the last 4 years are all of the Viagra, Levitra ect...ads on TV that openly discuss sex and "4 hour erections". Ever been watching with your 10 year old niece in the room? Or perhaps 8 year old nephew? Or any kid that doesn't need to be seeing ads like that? It's a little awkward. What kind of discussions does this spur for little Jimmy and his buddies or young Sally and her girlfriends at a sleepover?

Where do these drug companies get off putting those adds out at family viewing time and where do the networks who accept the add money get off approving it? Oh wait, could it possible be all about the money(as opposed to right and wrong) IN THE SHALLOW END OF THE POOL? Could this having something to do with young kids "bringing sexy back" at a younger and younger age? Could the national circus sourounding our friendlyneightborhood ex-President Clinton's horrific decision to play cigar and popsicle games with a 23....yes, 23 year old intern that he had lots of control and influence over have anything to do with it? Could the fact that Mom is just as likely these days to have to work to support our lifestyles versus nurturing and raising a child at home(at least until 5) have anything to do with it?

Just wondering. Thoughts anyone?

By: Froggy Doggy

Froggy Doggy — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:45:02 +0000

So kids 11-14 can get birth control pills without Mom and Dad knowing in a Maine Middle School? Wait...was that 11 years old???? Huh? I mean is it really 11 years old?

One thing that's increasingly irritated me for about the last 4 years are all of the Viagra, Levitra ect...ads on TV that openly discuss sex and "4 hour erections". Ever been watching with your 10 year old niece in the room? Or perhaps 8 year old nephew? Or any kid that doesn't need to be seeing ads like that? It's a little awkward. What kind of discussions does this spur for little Jimmy and his buddies or young Sally and her girlfriends at a sleepover?

Where do these drug companies get off putting those adds out at family viewing time and where do the networks who accept the add money get off approving it? Oh wait, could it possible be all about the money(as opposed to right and wrong) IN THE SHALLOW END OF THE POOL? Could this having something to do with young kids "bringing sexy back" at a younger and younger age? Could the national circus sourounding our friendlyneightborhood ex-President Clinton's horrific decision to play cigar and popsicle games with a 23....yes, 23 year old intern that he had lots of control and influence over have anything to do with it? Could the fact that Mom is just as likely these days to have to work to support our lifestyles versus nurturing and raising a child at home(at least until 5) have anything to do with it?

Just wondering. Thoughts anyone?