Fiorina: Government has to regulate “wild west” Internet

posted at 2:45 pm on October 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

It’s bad enough that the Left wants to regulate the Internet through “net neutrality” interventions.  Now we have Republicans talking about regulating the Internet in order to protect “women and children.”  Carly Fiorina told an audience in San Francisco that the “duality” would have to end:

She mentioned that politicians should be held accountable just the way that business managers and board members are, and that the U.S. government cannot continue to spend money without dealing with entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Fiorina criticized Boxer for successfully sponsoring only three relatively insignificant bills in her 18 years in the Senate.

“I don’t think that’s good enough,” she said.

Asked what she thought about regulation of the web, she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it. Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life. She said this duality — where anything goes on the wild wild west of the Internet — would have to end.

What protections do women need on the Internet that they have off of it?  After all, the Internet can’t mug you, or worse.  It’s a forum for free speech and commerce, which makes it no different than the shopping mall in most respects, except that the parking situation doesn’t stink. There is nothing on the Internet from which women need protecting that they don’t access on their own, and no threat different from those facing men on the Internet.

As for children, everyone understands that children’s access to the Internet should be supervised — by parents.  That’s just as true for the Internet as it is for the television, or for reading material, or for that matter, the aforementioned shopping mall.  We don’t regulate bookstores on the basis that children might enter it and shouldn’t see The Joy of Sex or Valley of the Dolls.  Parents should parent their children; governments should not parent anyone.

It’s almost as if Fiorina is equating “women” and “children” in terms of their ability to navigate the world, and especially in terms of potential victimhood.  Obviously, I don’t speak for women, but I would not be surprised if women found that kind of construct offensive, especially these days.

We have enough Democrats pushing a nanny state on us, especially in this Congress.  The last thing we need is a Republican candidate for the Senate running on the promise to make the Intertubes safe for the wimminfolk.

Update: Should have been, “I would not be surprised …”  I fixed it above.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This another RINO the RNC has decided to support. Chuck Devore 2012!!!!

Tasha on October 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM

But who’s going to protect us from politicians?

Drained Brain on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Net neutrality is akin to the regulation that requires those renting homes not to discriminate based on race or gender. In the case of the internet, its simply “thou shalt not discriminate packets”. Thats the beginning and the end of what net neutrality means in terms of regulation.

That said, that is the absolute maximum level of necessary internet regulation. The fed has to secure equity of access, as it does with jobs and homes, but thats it.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

yet another donation prevention Republican. Come’on Sarah!!

Onager on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Bush messed up years ago when he nixed the “.xxx” domain. That domain would have made life easier for companies to filter out porn web-sites.

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Ugh.

Why are we trying to replace Boxer with a Boxer Lite?

Enoxo on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Looks like she’s trying to shore up support with the Huckabee wing of the Republican Party.

notropis on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM

For the salvation of the party, let’s pray Chuck wins.

classicaliberal on October 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Free speech, Carly! Free speech!

thebrokenrattle on October 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Genocide on internet has to be stopped..

the_nile on October 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM

We have enough Democrats pushing a nanny state on us, especially in this Congress. The last thing we need is a Republican candidate for the Senate running on the promise to make the Intertubes safe for the wimminfolk.

lol.

I agree away with the Nanny Staters.

chemman on October 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM

What, exactly, did you think net neutrality was? Free flow packets? LOL.

It was a foot in the door of government control of content.

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Bush lied and the Internet users died…..

ObamatheMessiah on October 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Carly, get back in her wagon and head east. The Wild Western spirit lives on!!

portlandon on October 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Ugh.

Why are we trying to replace Boxer with a Boxer Lite?

Enoxo on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM

you got that right…

cmsinaz on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Carly 2012!!

/rightafterIgetlobotomized

CurtZHP on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Not really. That is what people were sold. In reality, NN has an end game of letting government regulate the internet much like any other media. People who supported NN never really looked at the actual bills or ideas behind it.

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Thats the beginning and the end of what net neutrality means in terms of regulation.

That said, that is the absolute maximum level of necessary internet regulation. The fed has to secure equity of access, as it does with jobs and homes, but thats it.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

BS. Net neutrality takes away the owners power to control their property (i.e., their network). If ATT cannot block a resource hog application from their network (e.g., a video phone application), the performance of their netowrk can be comprimised. If you do not like how company X is blocking or limiting another web application, switch! You have a choice.

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Why am I not surprised a McCain campaign veteran is supportive of Hugh Gubmint?

steveegg on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Crap. I guess I have to back DeVore now. I really thought Carly had the ability to beat Boxer, but I certainly don’t want to vote for someone who thinks government is THE ANSWER.

yogi41 on October 21, 2009 at 2:54 PM

thinking all the elected Republicans should just change their name to Democrat, and call themselves “Blue-Dogs”…then what would the media do? And they would be honest with who they are…believers in socialism and not in liberty and freedom.

Conservative Voice on October 21, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Bush messed up years ago when he nixed the “.xxx” domain. That domain would have made life easier for companies to filter out porn web-sites.

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM

It would have filtered out sites that want to be known as porn sites. There’s an awful lot of pornography out there that doesn’t advertise itself as such.

highhopes on October 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Isn’t this the same “technology expert” who drove HP into the ground?

marklmail on October 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM

First they came for the CEO of GM, and I did not speak out—because I was not a CEO;

Then they came for the B of A CEO, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Banker;

Then they came for Fox News, and I did not speak out—because I did not watch Fox News;

Then they came after Jews and Christians , and I did not speak out—because I was not Religious;

Then they came for me—and there were no Bloggers left to speak out for me.

Sanmon on October 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM

A flavor of the expert advice she provided McCain.

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Net neutrality is akin to the regulation that requires those renting homes not to discriminate based on race or gender. In the case of the internet, its simply “thou shalt not discriminate packets”.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

If I want to choose to purchase higher or lower quality of service, why should there be a law against making a private contract with my ISP for that? What business is it of government to decide how I pay for my access?

We don’t need net nannies of any kind.

pedestrian on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

A flavor of the expert advice she provided McCain.

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

I agree with Hota Air commenters!! I agree with Hot Air commenters!!!

Grow Fins on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life.

What the hell does that even mean?

This is why anyone McCain latches onto (and who attaches him or herself to that turd) should be immediately suspect and not taken seriously until they prove they are reasonable and have a brain. I guess the fact that Fiorina was a truly cr@ppy CEO didn’t mean too much to people … Now, they have this.

Enough.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Wow. I’m glad Carly is there to stand up for women and children and protect us.

I wonder what other places women are in danger.

Hopefully Carly can figure it out and protect me there too….

These people (whether well-intentioned or otherwise) are going to ‘protect’ us into nice, tidy little prisons all in the name of safety.

JadeNYU on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM

It was too late in the game for a .xxx top level domain. The idea behind .xxx was to force .com’s to switch to .xxx . It would never happen – valuable real estate would be lost and you’d easily be filtered out by ISP’s. .xxx is a good idea (as are .tv etc) but forcing companies into a top level domain is wrong.

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Well seeing as no bills have been passed, that jury is still out. There’s still time to do that right. But the nondiscrimination of packets has to pass.

You can erect yet another slippery slope argument against it, but there’s no compelling reason for anyone to assume NN will end in orwellian government control.

I say we at least try and do the right thing, rather than say ‘oh jeez but this could happen, we’re better off letting providers f*ck us the way they do with packaged cable’.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

ugh, come on Carly. . . I’m a fan but I don’t think congress can regulate the internet effectively without upsetting everything.

That said, I’ve been expecting a link to a story on what happens when politicians use the government as a weapon. They revoked the anti-trust exemption for health insurers – TAKE THAT for telling the truth.

ThackerAgency on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Grow Fins on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Everyone is glad that it’s about you.

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Government cannot be all things, to all people, and the sooner that the politicians, and supporters of big government reconcile themselves to that fact…the better off we’ll all be.

Parents, parent your kids, and government, get off our backs already. ENOUGH!!!

capejasmine on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

OH NOES LOOK OUTZ EVRYONEZ!@!

ITS TEH INTERNETS!@!!!!!

NNOOOOoooo!!!

Good Lt on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

The internet net needs more regulation… but not from the government…

We need something like rfc(s) for dealing for things like commenting systems and internet discourse… pornography… etc…

As for children, everyone understands that children’s access to the Internet should be supervised — by parents.

Sorry, but that’s not going to cut it… parents by themselves can’t do squat… you need to talk about social practices…

ninjapirate on October 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM

No more RINO Cali governors! Thanks for outing yourself early, Carly.

baldilocks on October 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM

I am offended.

publiuspen on October 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM

pedestrian on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

For the same reason its illegal for an employer or landlord to discriminate based on race, its simply not fair. Equity of access is justifiably required of those offering jobs and homes.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

FCC has passed net neutrality rules, I believe. Check em if you want. Pols have long been saying that NN is the foot in the door to more internet regulation. Be blind to it if you want.

Non-discrimination of packets is stupid. Why would government hinder private networks from assigning packets differently? they paid for the network, they contrl how it works. Don’t like it? Move to a new one. Oh that crazy free market!

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

“What protections do women need on the Internet that they have off of it?”

That’s a good question Ed…

Any felines in the audience want to offer an answer?

Seven Percent Solution on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Net nuetrality is socialism of the intraweb.

We aren’t speaking of discrimintating packets based on race or gender, that analogy is BS. We are talking of disciminiating packets based on willingness to pay. That’s called capitalism.

Why shouldn’t a telecommunication company sell preferential service to some at the cost of people eating up all available bandwidth with youtube videos and torrents who aren’t willing to pay more?

jhffmn on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

but there’s no compelling reason for anyone to assume NN will end in orwellian government control.

There’s no compelling reason, therefore, for the government to regulate further, either.

And that’s the standard. Goverment doesn’t regulate and then get to say, “prove we won’t overstep.”

It’s the other way around.

Good Lt on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

But the nondiscrimination of packets has to pass.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM

That is utter nonsense. Some packets are time critical and some are not. Packets don’t have civil rights and to talk otherwise is infantile.

pedestrian on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

911 Operator: What’s the nature of your emergnecy?

Caller: Help! The internet is attacking me and my children! It’s coming straight out of my computer and it’s got tentacles! Help! Send Super Carly!

darwin on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Which ever republican is running against her in a primary will get my cash.

Bruce NV on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

My bad. She’s running for the senate. No wonder the GOP idiots wanted her and not Larry Elder!

baldilocks on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Looks like Internet Czar Taggart is going to work up a number 6 on us. (clip PG-13).

forest on October 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Time to go donate some more to Chuck DeVore.

irishspy on October 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM

We don’t need net nannies of any kind.

Well, the left does. Apparently.

They need government nannies for EVERYTHING in their lives because they’re apparently incapable of living without them.

Good Lt on October 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Net neutrality is akin to the regulation that requires those renting homes not to discriminate based on race or gender.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Property owners should have the right to do with their property what they want – to rent it to whomever they choose and not rent it to whomever they decide not to, for whatever reason they want. Private business owners should be allowed to hire and fire whomever they want (within the confines of contracts they bind themselves to).

Keep mouthing the leftist idiocy that destroys the foundation of America – private property rights.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM

So Carly wants the government to regulate the internet instead of having parents buy net filtering software, which they can do easily and relatively cheaply? She’s not too technologically savvy considering she ran HP.

Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM

You guys are overreacting way too much to this…

ninjapirate on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

highhopes on October 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM

The solution to that for parents is to use software that restricts access to approved sites only. My son wrote software for his own system to do exactly this. My grandchildren are only allowed to access approved sites. If it is on the list they can’t access it.

chemman on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

You guys are overreacting way too much to this…

US OUT OF MY INTERNET

ALL THE WAY OUT

Good Lt on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

For the salvation of the party, let’s pray donate and make sure Chuck wins.

classicaliberal on October 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

lovingmyUSA on October 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM

They are coming at us from all sides people. Something has to be done quickly. We have enough evidence of their intentions now. It’s nice to point out things to try and get more people to wake up, but the more we expose, the closer they are to their ends.

The only thing we are doing now is acknowledging our own demise as we closer to the cliff.

MobileVideoEngineer on October 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Nope. She’s not one of us conservatives. She is a statist wanting to do the right thing and to hell with freedom and liberty if you disagree. I’ve seen her face before. Just as pretty and just as dangerous. Not as bad as the NY Favette but not someone we could rely upon. Just like Newt.
Randy

williars on October 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

I agree with Hota Air commenters!! I agree with Hot Air commenters!!!
Grow Fins on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

You’re agreeing with Freedom and Liberty, that’s always a good thing to support.

Juno77 on October 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

She said she is a Republican in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln in that she believes “people, left to themselves, make better decisions about their lives than the government does.”

—Carly thinks she a libertarian, BTW, from the article.

Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM

After all, the Internet can’t mug you, or worse. It’s a forum for free speech and commerce[...]. There is nothing on the Internet from which women need protecting that they don’t access on their own, and no threat different from those facing men on the Internet.

That’s an ignorant statement.

As far as I can tell from the report, Fiorina didn’t come out in favor of “net neutrality.” She came out in favor of protecting women and children. I’m not sure exactly what she’s referring to, but there’s a tad bit more to the internet – particularly in the hands of a would-be molester or stalker – than parental control over viewing porn sites. The bookstore comparison is also a bad one: We don’t try hard to protect kids from Valley of the Dolls, but hardcore pornography is another story. Right now, there are, for instance, numerous laws addressing sexual solicitation of minors and the distribution of child pornography via the ‘net. Are y’all in favor of repealing them?

CK MacLeod on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I’m in favor of net neutrality. I just don’t trust this particular government not to find a way to f**k us all with it.

LibTired on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Is that what happened? Sheesh. The GOP is just suicidal.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM

I suppose we ought to ask Newt what he thinks.

a capella on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM

“It’s the coooooooooooooode of the West.”

Akzed on October 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Oops. Meant to be responding to baldilocks.

No wonder the GOP idiots wanted her and not Larry Elder!

baldilocks on October 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Is that what happened? Sheesh. The GOP is just suicidal.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Damn, she will never beat Boxer. No chance when she utters idiotic sound bites like that.
Save your money Carly, retire gracefully in Bermuda, don’t waste yours or my time.
Thanks in advance.

FireBlogger on October 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM

Jimbo3 on October 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM

She appears to be a typical elitist who thinks we can’t do it for ourselves.

ninjapirate on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

The reaction is to the Nanny Statism that assumes we need a Government fix for something we can do ourselves

chemman on October 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Property owners should have the right to do with their property what they want – to rent it to whomever they choose and not rent it to whomever they decide not to, for whatever reason they want. Private business owners should be allowed to hire and fire whomever they want (within the confines of contracts they bind themselves to).

Keep mouthing the leftist idiocy that destroys the foundation of America – private property rights.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM

LOL thats right, we should all have the right to tell those damn beaners and uppity negroes to get the f*ck out of our apartment building! I shudder at the thought of living in your ideal nation.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I have never been impressed with Carly Fiorina

faraway on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM

wow. i’m really glad someone’s going to save a helpless woman like me from the big bad internet.

patriette on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Hi, I’m from the government and…

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Lord Almighty, I hate the RNC and their stupidity.

ultracon on October 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM

What the hell is she talking about?!

NavyMustang on October 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM

We have enough Democrats pushing a nanny state on us, especially in this Congress. The last thing we need is a Republican candidate for the Senate running on the promise to make the Intertubes safe for the wimminfolk.

This woman was a (failed) CEO of a major computer corporation. Does she need to be protected from what is lurking on the internet? Might explain why she wasn’t a good exec.

highhopes on October 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM

but forcing companies into a top level domain is wrong.

lorien1973 on October 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Forcing by law would be wrong, but my hope at the time was that guberment\Bush would have nudged them into the xxx domain. Use the bully pulpit.

I think the redirects from .com to .xxx could have easily been filtered too.

WashJeff on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM

I shudder at the thought of living in your ideal nation.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Freedom sucks?

Ya, there are responsibilities and consequences too.

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Lord Almighty, I hate the RNC and their stupidity.

ultracon on October 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM

She’s not a Republican, she is a McCain Republican. Big difference.

highhopes on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM

You guys are being stupid… good god…

I don’t want government regulation of the internet… but things need to change to promote healthy discourse…

I can’t wait for the day people realize that content should be completely separated from feedback… where blog posts and youtube videos are separated from comments… this needs to be standardized like html is standardized… not by government but it needs to happen…

ninjapirate on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM

What, because i think its ok for the government to step in and demand i not get discriminated against when im trying to get a job just because im brown? Thats tantamount to saying freedom sucks? disgusting.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM

If it is on the list they can’t access it.

chemman on October 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Engage brain before fingers chemman. If it isn’t on the list they can’t access it.

CK MacLeod on October 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Some good points. How do you stop pedophiles from trolling. All the laws on the books about illegal use of Guns hasn’t stopped that. I am no longer willing to give up any rights for the appearance of gaining safety.

chemman on October 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM

What, because i think its ok for the government to step in and demand i not get discriminated against when im trying to get a job just because im brown? Thats tantamount to saying freedom sucks? disgusting.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Wow, you are scary.

Um, people should be free to do stupid and unpopular things with their own bodies and property.

Yes, you and I might one day be victimized by it.

And?

The cost of freedom.

BTW, your hysteria is noted.

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Compared to Boxer this woman is a hard rightest. Folks, this is kalifornia.

jukin on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

LOL thats right, we should all have the right to tell those damn beaners and uppity negroes to get the f*ck out of our apartment building! I shudder at the thought of living in your ideal nation.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Spare me your idiocy for two minutes, please. There are “black corporations” that have percentages of blacks working for them that would get a similar “white” organization in court and paying out millions. We have a Balck Congressional Caucus that rejected the membership of a Congress-critter who represented a majority black district because the guy was white. We have “black colleges” whose faculty and student body show that there is nothing unbiased going on in their selections, those same selections which would have landed other colleges in hot legal water, had the colors been switched. If you ever had anything to do with college hiring committees, then you would know that race and gender are big time issues taken into account – but you think that no one else should be allowed to do the same.

You are a mess of inconsistency, as leftists all are. Private property that belongs to someone else is not YOURS to determine who he can sell or rent to. Your ideal world is a hell-hole, and unfortunately, one we are quickly hurtling towards.

Go work on some hate-crime legislation. That’s another lefty winner. Do you have anything to say about how oddly those hate-crime laws are applied? I’ll bet you don’t. Moron.

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM

So the cost of freedom is…rampant, justified racism? Sheesh

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Time to cast her out of the race….I would rather see Chuck DeVore be elected to the Senate seat. Read his Bio~.

http://www.ChuckDeVore.com

hawkman on October 21, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I’ve already got a mom, Carly, and she’s prettier than you.

Jim Treacher on October 21, 2009 at 3:15 PM

progressoverpeace on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

You could’ve just said, “exactly”. Woulda saved a lot of screen real estate.

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Like a library, I think the internet should be arranged in sections.
You can make all porn stuff on a .sex domain, similar to what they do in a library, they put all the adult books in one area.
And the children books in another. I see nothing wrong with categorizing certain areas of the internet.
Makes it easier to research, easier to block, easier to un-block.
Problems with the categories, sure, but you work through them.
.com doesn’t have to be everything. They have .org, .biz, etc. use them.

right2bright on October 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM

So the cost of freedom is…rampant, justified racism? Sheesh

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

In your case, I doubt the failure to land the job would have much to do with the color of your skin.

Jim Treacher on October 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM

So the cost of freedom is…rampant, justified racism?

I didn’t see that typed anywhere.

Where’d you come up with that?

Good Lt on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Asked what she thought about regulation of the web, she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it.

Yes, the inevitable inevitable theory of big government. By now everybody has bought into it. It sustains their self image as the governing elite. This is why Reagan was so simply radical. You know what, he asked — it’s not inevitable. Heresy! Destroy him!

rrpjr on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Not only do women need to be protected from the internet, so do cats and dogs, who have no ability to know what they are clicking on. There’s lots of cat nudity, videos of cats acting stupidly, cats high on catnip, cats sleeping in the nude, what if my cat was to see that? I can’t be home all the time to watch them.

Then there’s my 71 year old mother. Who is now a great grandmother as of last month. What if she was to see fornication by accident? She has a laptop with a high speed cable connection which is fast enough to see nudity and sex before she would close her eyes. Imagine what that could do? My mother doesn’t know what sex is, much less engage in it herself. Her children do, but they are evil. She herself has never seen a naked man with an erection, so accidentally coming across that might frighten her and her little white dog who sits on the couch next to her.

Most of all, I need to be protected from the internet. My email account keeps getting innundated with aids for male enhancement products and male performance products. I find it humiliating and degrading. How do they know? I keep downloading porno videos. I can’t help myself. Someone has to stop me. The most disturbing thing is all the dirty email jokes others send me. People that know and love me are contributing to my delinquency. The worst offender? My 71 year old mother sends me at least one dirty email joke a day? They’ve already go to my mother. How long will it be before they get to yours?

Just like the feminine hygiene product commercials keep telling me, what good is freedom without protection?

keep the change on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Compared to Boxer this woman is a hard rightest. Folks, this is kalifornia.

jukin on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Good point.

darwin on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM

OMG from one of “our own”.

stenwin77 on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM

So the cost of freedom is…rampant, justified racism? Sheesh

ernesto on October 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM

1. Who says it’s justified? I said there are consequences and people should be free with their bodies/belongings to do stupid and wrong things.

2. Free markets would help determine what would be rampant or not.

Oops, there’s that word FREE again.

So, how statist are you?

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Republicans = Democrats, 1990.

BowHuntingTexas on October 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM

no wonder she loved mccain: they’re both liberals.

reliapundit on October 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM

In your case, I doubt the failure to land the job would have much to do with the color of your skin.

Jim Treacher on October 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM

lolz

But that’s what he would blame it on!

artist on October 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3