General Discussion

proverbialwisdom

(4,959 posts)

8. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Wasserman-Schultz's work on this issue cannot be legitimately critiqued.

Reply to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:26 PM

Jan 2012

http://protect.org/component/content/article/1009

[img]

[/img]

[img]

[/img]
(Photo caption: Lead sponsors of the PROTECT Our Children Act 2008, left to right: Sen. Joe Biden (D), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D), Rep. Joe Barton (R))

Video of Congressional Testimony:
Testimony of PROTECT Executive Director Grier Weeks (video)
Testimony of Alicia Kozakiewicz (video)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz questions the FBI Director Mueller (video)

What this fight was about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= P5OmJ6DffaM (warning: graphic FBI Congressional testimony excerpt)
http://www.spcoalition.org/
http://protect.org/component/content/article/702

.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here we go again. Now it's supposedly about child pornography. [View all] woo me with science Jan 2012 OP

Of course. It is fucking pathetic how transparent they are. Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #1

Utterly dishonest tactics of the authoritarians. woo me with science Jan 2012 #16

Worse is, which Critter(s) will point it out? n/t BadgerKid Jan 2012 #22

Nobody? Factually false, which is tragic considering the indefensible crimes and that proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #57

I understand that you are confused and think these bills are actually about Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #61

Thanks for the post, woo. I have been looking all over the board for you. russspeakeasy Jan 2012 #2

Hey, woo me with science Jan 2012 #7

They say kiddie porn, but it will be used to track filesharing AND pot growers Taverner Jan 2012 #3

Yup. woo me with science Jan 2012 #18

Always. Isn't that what they've mostly used the PATRIOT act for? Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #31

So will that make SSL, HTTPS, VPN and general encryption illegal? MattBaggins Jan 2012 #4

No, that's not how the prospective law was written. boppers Jan 2012 #48

K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #5

Wow. The old Protect the Children Gambit. Disappointed in Debbie. DirkGently Jan 2012 #6

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Wasserman-Schultz's work on this issue cannot be legitimately critiqued. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #8

Please don't defend this fascist crap. LAGC Jan 2012 #11

Well said. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #17

I think it's an ironic way to point at who supports this madness. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #28

Fair points. Thanks for acknowledging there's a massive unresolved problem due to underfunding. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #60

Yeah, I don't think anyone would be opposed to a bill SOLELY to increase law enforcement funding. LAGC Jan 2012 #62

Read and weep: http://protect.org/component/content/article/1196 proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #63

As I said, cloaking this crap in 'kiddie porn' is despicable. Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #27

Don't slime PROTECT.ORG when you don't have any supporting facts and don't know their views on this. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #45

Yes, and Chris Dodd used to be on our side as well Hugabear Jan 2012 #64

And Al Franken. Money talks. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #65

Good point. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #66

If they were so concerned about online child pornography justiceischeap Jan 2012 #42

I guess folks haven't noticed how many of these predators are in elected office :-( Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #49

That's an excellent point. snagglepuss Jan 2012 #53

More like H.R. 1984. /nt Drale Jan 2012 #9

Follow the money, reduce the demand for illegal porn. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #12

I'm not defending any thing Drale Jan 2012 #21

Follow the money, reduce the demand for illegal porn. proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #13

You follow the money as explained below - GoneOffShore Jan 2012 #32

The article is from May 2011. Edweird Jan 2012 #10

Try reading more carefully. woo me with science Jan 2012 #14

It wasn't an attempt to 'dis-inform'. Edweird Jan 2012 #24

Thank you. I apologize. woo me with science Jan 2012 #33

Incorrect, if you go to the link for the first article - SOPA sponsor has another Internet bill that quinnox Jan 2012 #15

out of curiosity, any reaction to this quinnox Jan 2012 #19

Hell no, it's not a good idea. Edweird Jan 2012 #23

thanks, I agree quinnox Jan 2012 #25

Now theyre trying to find a scapegoat for SOPA. Initech Jan 2012 #20

How many times can Wikipedia go dark in protest... derby378 Jan 2012 #26

Bullshit Prophet 451 Jan 2012 #29

Anonymous had no problem finding them and exposing them. Maybe they should sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #38

Follow the money: sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #30

Wow, very important information about their contributors. woo me with science Jan 2012 #34

Phhhhhttttt, that's pocket money. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #43

Not if they are among your top five campaign contributers: sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #44

They seem to be catching scads of child porn hawkers even without this. Kablooie Jan 2012 #35

The lobbying has never stopped. I cannot remember which show but there is a pro-SOPA ad on one jwirr Jan 2012 #36

From another thread... krispos42 Jan 2012 #37

Excellent. nt woo me with science Jan 2012 #39

Hits the nail on the head.......n/t Rowdyboy Jan 2012 #40

K&R! Louisiana1976 Jan 2012 #41

Jesus... K & R !!! WillyT Jan 2012 #46

I call bullshit. boppers Jan 2012 #47

There's storage for it. If you have a Google account check your web history. joshcryer Jan 2012 #50

Google is not an ISP. boppers Jan 2012 #51

IP's are 4 bytes. MAC addresses are, what, 32? joshcryer Jan 2012 #52

MAC addresses are ripped off the packet at each router hop. boppers Jan 2012 #58

Hell, that would work out well as an excuse for a round of corporate welfare. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #54

It's a hard-drive manufacturer bailout? boppers Jan 2012 #59

When all other excuses fail, it's time to pull out the child porn card meow2u3 Jan 2012 #55

Obviously, then, the solution is to eliminate "the child porn card." proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #56

Always "For the Children". BiggJawn Jan 2012 #67

FYI (off OP topic, but relevant filmmaking) proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #68

Thank you very much. woo me with science Jan 2012 #69