Wednesday, December 01, 2010

In Defense of Liberty!

TODAY
DOUBLE HANGING
2 down, 612 to go

It's been a long time since we had a hanging; the paper work is a killer.  Still, nothing in Internet history can produce an instance of hangings so honorably conducted.  I say nothing of  motives, they being self evident. God forbid we should ever be again 20 months without such a rebellion against these tyrants. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If we remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. 

Press the button when you are ready Sirs and Madames!  May God have mercy on their canker-blossomed souls, because we will not. 

click to read warrants
Sound effects: CLANK; THUD; ARRGGHHHH!
Tom J

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dang, these hangin's is gettin' fancy. However my liege, you've transposed the links, and for the life of me, I don't understand your opposition to net neutrality.

Casca

P.S. I'd still hang him.

Anonymous said...

If "Net Neutrality" is found to be constitutional, then we need TV neutrality and print neutrality and radio neutrality.

We'll have Rush and Michael Savage on NPR.

Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin editorial columns in the NYFT and WA PO.

CBS NBC and ABC and CNN will all have to show Lou Dobbs and Hannity shows in equal proportion to their liberal horse crap.

Oh- we don't want all that ?
Well then guess fucking what - NO NET NEUTRALITY!

OregonGuy said...

Net neutrality is nice sounding. What it will do is the opposite of what happened after the break-up of Ma Bell. Regulation will result in my not being able to choose how I purchase the good we call access to the internet.

Let providers set their own prices and policies. Please.
.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Thanks Casca - fixed, although I can't imagine both wouldn't hang regardless.

As to my opposition:

1) The bill was rejected by congress 2-1. What's happening here is an unelected regulator making an end run around the constitution. That's a hanging offense.

Secondarily, I am opposed to government's involvement in any way, manner, or form with the internet. Period. I think, so should you be.

Anonymous said...

It's a complicated issue, but right now the providers are throttling our access to web content. I'm against that. Google and the other inter-thugs may be on the side of the angels on this one. Some regulation is obviously necessary. Until then, we're in exactly the position we were before the breakup of Ma Bell, kinda sorta.

Casca

Rodger the Real King of France said...

When in doubt, do the opposite of what ever Moveon.org advocates.

Alear said...

Rodg, I don't often get on your case, but come on:

"Secondarily, I am opposed to government's involvement in any way, manner, or form with the internet."

What's next, keep gummint's hands off your social security checks?

Anonymous said...

I'm cornfuzzed. [no. srsly.] How is the situation different now than "the position we were before the breakup of Ma Bell?" Except for the invention of the handy-dandy pocket fone, I'm in exactly the same situation re fones as before the MaBell break-up. Like with electricity the "choice" is, "use ours or use none."

I currently have lots of choices for da InnerToobz. Which I dearly hope the damned gubbmint keeps its nasssty paws off of.

As a blogger I hate the idea that I might have to end every post with "here are some dumbasses who "think" differently" and a link to MoveOn or HuffPoo.

What was that up-side, again?

e~C

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.