jb_nc
Google "9-11" and "truth"
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 5,391
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Really? To me it seems like a foolish idea they initially didn't realise was technoloigcally unfeasible (Liberals did the same, though they realised earlier). The only party which actively promotes net neutrality is the Greens (who are more left than Labour) so I can't see what this has to do with where the party stands politically, let alone how it relates to socialism (but you call everything socialism, so...).zstar said:Labour's Fabian Socialism is dangerous for this country and needs to be put to a stop as soon as possible.
They've overstepped the boundaries to what is acceptable.
This is a dangerous movement towards authoritarianism and they need to be stopped.
A+ post.Trefoil said:Really? To me it seems like a foolish idea they initially didn't realise was technoloigcally unfeasible (Liberals did the same, though they realised earlier). The only party which actively promotes net neutrality is the Greens (who are more left than Labour) so I can't see what this has to do with where the party stands politically, let alone how it relates to socialism (but you call everything socialism, so...).
Took them long enough.jb_nc said:
Socialists are pro-nanny state.Trefoil said:Really? To me it seems like a foolish idea they initially didn't realise was technoloigcally unfeasible (Liberals did the same, though they realised earlier). The only party which actively promotes net neutrality is the Greens (who are more left than Labour) so I can't see what this has to do with where the party stands politically, let alone how it relates to socialism (but you call everything socialism, so...).
I think we just have to wait and see how long it takes Conroy to wake up to this fact. He's an absolutely horrible Communications Minister.
It looks to me like somebody needs to beat you within an inch of your life with the clue stick, mate.zstar said:Socialists are pro-nanny state.
They claim to be listening to vocal minorities but in reality they have the philosophy that government knows best.
They couldn't care less about your complaints because they are a bunch of commie thugs.
Trefoil said:It looks to me like somebody needs to beat you within an inch of your life with the clue stick, mate.
I don't like arguments about technological unfeasability, because while true, they don't address why it's wrong.Trefoil said:Really? To me it seems like a foolish idea they initially didn't realise was technoloigcally unfeasible (Liberals did the same, though they realised earlier).
http://images.google.com.au/images?q=computer pictures&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wiStarcraftmazter said:Just in case the following sites have not been mentioned;
http://www.leavethenetalone.wordpress.com
http://wiki.efp.org.au/
http://www.forum.efp.org.au
And irc, #ausrage on rizon.
The net filter is idiotic at best. CP on the net doesn't exist on websites per say, it exists on usenet and other places which are impossible to effectively filter.
Which was the more subtle point I was trying to make: of the three main political parties in Australia, only the Greens are morally opposed to Internet censorship.Graney said:I don't like arguments about technological unfeasability, because while true, they don't address why it's wrong.
Says the guy who thinks Internet censorship is a great idea.Iron said:May their heads be struck from their anarchist bodies