quote: update Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.
The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.
quote: According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.
I think this legislation would be the death of Hatrack and most web forums. I know I would take down my comic's forum and the shout box, because, frankly, I don't want to have to investigate every poster to see who they are and if they're a sex offender and I sure as hell don't want to pay a $300,000 fine.
This is just another case of McCain (and politicians in general) blithering on about something they don't know a thing about. I'm scared this will pass and I'm scared the courts won't know enough to over rule it on the basis it creates an undue burdon on free speech.
This is stupider than the debate on the IRS taxing Phat Lewts in video games.
Pix
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't imagine this will pass, or if it does, I can't imagine it'll be around for very long.
And I think it hurts John McCain's image with younger voters, which I doubt he cares about because they don't vote in large numbers.
Yet another thing youth apathy is being punished with.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
My opinion of him has gone down quite a bit in the past year or so. He's taken a number of positions I disagree with, and he seems to be getting a lot closer to the more extreme members of the party than he used to be.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, it is the most "extreme" members of the party (and that goes for both of them) that will decide who runs for President. He currently doesn't have much favor with them. It seems he knows this and is trying (very poorly I would say) to get them to like him.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The gentleman has never had much use for free speech. I think this fits in with his core belief. Reference McCain-Fiengold.
He loves censoring people.
I think, if it came down to him and Hillary, I just might vote Hillary.
I mean, ya, she drinks the blood of kittens and holds satanic baby sacrifices. But at least she's not John McCain.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've said for years now that I don't understand McCain's popularity, and am confident that those people who endorse his presidency will flee in droves once they get to know him. (Back when people talked about a McCain/Bradley ticket, I insisted that it be Bradley/McCain. *grin*)
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, it is the most "extreme" members of the party (and that goes for both of them) that will decide who runs for President. He currently doesn't have much favor with them. It seems he knows this and is trying (very poorly I would say) to get them to like him.
That's another problem I have with the current political system. The primaries tend to encourage people to vote for more extreme candidates, even though moderates would likely be more popular to the general public.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom: I think his popularity tends to stim from his willingness to go on TV and badmouth other republicans. I totally agree that once the left gets to know him his popularity will go away.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"even though moderates would likely be more popular to the general public."
Maybe that is the fault of the moderates for not voting in the primaries. Its not as if it is against the law for them to do that.
Not that I want moderates to pick the next Presidential runners.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
First of all the bill will never get passed, too much money for corporate america to lose.
Second, McCain is a good guy, I have no clue what's up with this proposal though. Must be trying to appeal to American Families who are worried about sex offenders targeting their children or something???
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:That's another problem I have with the current political system. The primaries tend to encourage people to vote for more extreme candidates ...
Which is, I suspect, part of the reason Ned Lamont ended up on the ballot.
From the article:
quote:The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.
This doesn't seem very enforceable.
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This doesn't seem very enforceable.
The law isn't designed to be enforceable in the sense that we detect most violations and punish them.
Rather, it's a way to allow law enforcement to target specific people of interest and find something to put them away for.
Many sex offenders are on supervised release after they get out. Such release often contains relaxed fourth amendment standards for searching homes. Even after supervised release ends, it's easier to get a search warrant against a convicted offender.
The offender who is still offending has two choices: register his name and risk being targeted in a chat room by officers who know who he is or reported by an unsuccessful online seduction, or not registering and being subject to arrest after a search.
So no, it doesn't seem very enforceable based on the percentage of violations that will be detected. But it doesn't need to be to serve its intended purpose.
Many people don't appreciate how many laws exist not to punish specific bad behavior but to make catching and prosecuting targeted individuals easier. It's the real reason we have mandatory minimums - to give the prosecutor power.
The public likes mandatory minimums and laws like this, but the reason they get passed is that prosecutors have enormous amounts of input into drafting criminal laws.
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
Right now I would take McCain, Gulianni, Obama, or Clinton with open, OPEN arms. Anybody but this dipshit in office right now.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "even though moderates would likely be more popular to the general public."
Maybe that is the fault of the moderates for not voting in the primaries. Its not as if it is against the law for them to do that.
Not that I want moderates to pick the next Presidential runners.
Well, actually, it sort of is. I spent nearly sixteen years as a political independent, and I could not vote in any primaries in my state. I finally decided to join a political party just so that I could have some small say in who the later candidates would be, but then I'm still shut out of half of the primaries, and I'm almost equally likely to want to vote for a member of either party.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
It also could be just a bill he endorses just to get the attention of certain lobbyists who push single issue items into congress. He may very well know it wont pass or not even care that it wont. As long as a group of voters who are not happy with th ecurrent legal system feels they have somone listening. many poloticians propose bills or draft legislation they believe will fail simply to give the idea that they care.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "even though moderates would likely be more popular to the general public."
Maybe that is the fault of the moderates for not voting in the primaries. Its not as if it is against the law for them to do that.
Not that I want moderates to pick the next Presidential runners.
Well, actually, it sort of is. I spent nearly sixteen years as a political independent, and I could not vote in any primaries in my state. I finally decided to join a political party just so that I could have some small say in who the later candidates would be, but then I'm still shut out of half of the primaries, and I'm almost equally likely to want to vote for a member of either party.
I think it'd be entirely too easy to allow abuses in a system where anyone can vote in BOTH primaries.
If it were me, I'd vote for Giuliani and Hillary. Why? Becuase I know Hillary would womp on him. It's sabotaging democracy.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Dagonee- What does "sex offender" mean in this instance? Does it include statuary rape?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
John McCain is a good dude who did some good things, In many ways, he's a stand-up fella. He is also extraordinarily conservative in his policies and voting record. The 'extraordinarily conservative' part is pretty important in regards to whether or not one really wants him to hold the highest political office in the land.
His reputation as a maaaaaaverick and his propensity to act in an accountable fashion had once endeared him to a wide audience that liked how he stood out against his indolent peers. He kinda pooped that out in a series of photo ops and game-plays with a certain president who has ended up with a reputation that some might describe as perhaps being less than .. uh, agreeable.
I think he'd make a great cabinet member, or sommat. For years and years and years, he'd been one of the few people in Congress who tried early and often to dredge realistic Iraq reports out of the recalcitrant administration.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's ironic that McCain, who was the upstart in 2000, is now the frontrunner, but his actions to secure the nomination may be what dooms him in the general. I think the argument of electability is what Mitt Romney will try and use to launch his OWN insurgency. And who knows, maybe Rudy will be able to confound the truth for long enough to get the nom.
I think most of the Democratic frontrunners will have a 50/50 chance or better of beating most of the Republican front runners.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee- What does "sex offender" mean in this instance? Does it include statuary rape?
I don't know. I'd have to look at the bill.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I've said for years now that I don't understand McCain's popularity, and am confident that those people who endorse his presidency will flee in droves once they get to know him. (Back when people talked about a McCain/Bradley ticket, I insisted that it be Bradley/McCain. *grin*)
Huh? I had no Idea I was running for president.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Obama and Romney is my dream race.
Clinton and Guiliani is my nightmare.
I'm a little afraid McCain is going to be the reality. *sigh*
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hey dab, can we ease up on the vulgarity?
Thanks,
-Bok
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "even though moderates would likely be more popular to the general public."
Maybe that is the fault of the moderates for not voting in the primaries. Its not as if it is against the law for them to do that.
Not that I want moderates to pick the next Presidential runners.
Well, actually, it sort of is. I spent nearly sixteen years as a political independent, and I could not vote in any primaries in my state. I finally decided to join a political party just so that I could have some small say in who the later candidates would be, but then I'm still shut out of half of the primaries, and I'm almost equally likely to want to vote for a member of either party.
I think it'd be entirely too easy to allow abuses in a system where anyone can vote in BOTH primaries.
If it were me, I'd vote for Giuliani and Hillary. Why? Becuase I know Hillary would womp on him. It's sabotaging democracy.
That's why states that allow independents to vote in the primaries require them to temporarily choose a party, and only vote in that party's primary. Arizona was like that, and so is Ohio.
--Mel
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Hey, Lieberman was frontrunner in '04 to begin with. This is simply because people had heard of him.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Bok, of course the real problem isn't the vulgarity but the ad hominem/strawman/well-poisoning nature of the "argument."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I like him even less these days than I did before. I respected him at least a bit until the 2004 elections. He lost all credibility then and seems to be getting worse.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bills typically have to be more encompassing then they are designed to be so that when they get watered down in the senate or even the house it is still doing something IF it even passes.
I can't tell you how many bills did EXACTLY enough, no more, no less and by the time they made it through the gauntlet, they did not only nothing they were originally designed to do, but only alittle of something else it was never intended to do, stupid free riders.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Just yet another in the long long long list of sleazy "gimmee bill"s introduced solely to extort money from "donor"s. Kinda like Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter's promise to write a bill to prevent the Fed's from investigating corporate criminals.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Damn. That poor man - awfully young for a stroke. Damn.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Crowswife-
I have no problem with a system like that.
quote:Obama and Romney is my dream race.
Clinton and Guiliani is my nightmare.
I'm a little afraid McCain is going to be the reality. *sigh*
Clinton or Obama, barring an extreme come from behind victory by Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, will be the nominees, probably with the one who doesn't win being the other's VP (with one exception, I think Hillary would rather go back to the senate than by VP).
While Giuliani is a statistical frontrunner with McCain, he really isn't. McCain is out in front by himself, but the media isn't putting it that way yet. He's the presumptive nominee. People who don't follow politics as closely as Hatrackers don't even know who Mitt Romney is outside of Massachusettes, and maybe Michigan (where he's from). I believe he's polling in the single digits, while Giuliani and McCain are in the high 30's, and some other randoms round it out, like Condi Rice, who also won't win the nom.
McCain or Romney vs. Clinton or Obama.
Odds favor McCain vs. Clinton. But it isn't automatic, it also depends on who actually decides to run, rather than gauging presumptive nominees.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It all depends on the timing. If the new Senate is sworn in before the governor has a chance to appoint a successor, if he indeed ends up having to do so at all, then Democrats will take control, and retain control even if he is replaced, they just don't have a majority.
They only have to hold out for about a month.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It all depends on the timing. If the new Senate is sworn in before the governor has a chance to appoint a successor, if he indeed ends up having to do so at all, then Democrats will take control, and retain control even if he is replaced, they just don't have a majority.
Why is this the case? When Jeffords switched, the Democrats took control. Given the last election, I dont' expect the Republicans to be as generous with their tie-breaker this time around.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the same reason that Webb giving Dems a 51-49 majority is what got the Dems control in the first place. Had Webb lost, and the Senate ended with a 50/50 split, Republicans would have retained control, but not the majority.
When Jeffords switched, the Senate was already 50/50 under Republican control, Jeffords made it 49/50/1 with that 1 caucusing with the Democrats, which gave them a virtual 51/49 control, and thus control of the committees.
If this takes place before the new Senate is sworn in, Republicans keep control. If this takes place AFTER, then Democrats will take the Senate, and then retain it even with a 50/50 split.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For the same reason that Webb giving Dems a 51-49 majority is what got the Dems control in the first place. Had Webb lost, and the Senate ended with a 50/50 split, Republicans would have retained control, but not the majority.
That's not true. The Republicans would have had control because they had the tie-breaking vote in the form of Cheney. In fact, though, they shared control with the Democrats - voluntarily.
quote:If this takes place before the new Senate is sworn in, Republicans keep control. If this takes place AFTER, then Democrats will take the Senate, and then retain it even with a 50/50 split.
Where are you getting this from? The Senate will not be even. It will be 50-50, with Cheney allowed to vote whenevery there is a tie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whoops. I missed that little tidbit. I forgot about Cheney (a fairly glaring oversight).
Either way we're all being pretty presumptuous, we don't know the medical condition of the senator in question.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Given the last election, I dont' expect the Republicans to be as generous with their tie-breaker this time around.
Huh? Generous? I remember the Republicans shutting out most of the Democrats from everything, especially sending Republican only groups to the conference committees with the house, so that legislation the Senate passed became drastically changed when returned from that committee.
Now sure, with the house in Democratic hands, and a strong lack of support for the President, I see a lot of Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for fiscally responsible Democratic legislation. In fact, with all the fanfare Baker and his Bi-Partisan committee got last week, I expect this Senate to be a lot more friendly than the last one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Huh? Generous? I remember the Republicans shutting out most of the Democrats from everything
Then you remember wrongly, because the Republicans shared power when they did not have to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The FEC concluded that the three 527 organizations violated campaign finance laws because they expressly stated their desire to influence the presidential election in their fundraising, their public statements or their advertisements. Such activity, the FEC said, could only be conducted by political committee registered with the FEC that abide by contribution limits and public disclosure requirements.
The idea that someone has to register with the government to influence how others vote is absolutely repugnant to me.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
That elected officials are allowed to be bought by special interest groups is repugnant.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The idea that votes are allowed to be openly bought is even more repugnant.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Democrats weren't even allowed to see a bill before it was introduced for a vote. So they certainly weren't allowed any input in crafting the bills.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The idea that the government can fine me for running a tv add saying "Vote for <specific candidate's name>" is about as antithetical to the ideals of the first amendment as anything I can think of.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There might have been power sharing in the Senate, but Republicans were tyrannical in the House. They didn't have the same kind of power in the Senate, due to the rules that govern both houses of the Congress, but it's not like it mattered much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The idea that the government can fine me for running a tv add saying "Vote for <specific candidate's name>" is about as antithetical to the ideals of the first amendment as anything I can think of.
Agreed, but how do we control campaign finance so that it isn't just favoring the rich and allowing only the wealthy to obtain public office?
Freedom of expression should be protected, but right now our senate is The Millionaires Club, and we haven't had a president like Lincoln or Jackson in a long time as IMO its impossible for one to get elected.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There might have been power sharing in the Senate, but Republicans were tyrannical in the House. They didn't have the same kind of power in the Senate, due to the rules that govern both houses of the Congress, but it's not like it mattered much.
It matters a lot when all these things are brought up to refute something else entirely. I said "I dont' expect the Republicans to be as generous with their tie-breaker this time around."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Agreed, but how do we control campaign finance so that it isn't just favoring the rich and allowing only the wealthy to obtain public office?"
You don't. Not if you really believe in freedom of expression.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Agreed, but how do we control campaign finance so that it isn't just favoring the rich and allowing only the wealthy to obtain public office?
How do rules that making it harder for people to pool their money for political speech make the rich less favored? They don't need to pool their money.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Bok, of course the real problem isn't the vulgarity but the ad hominem/strawman/well-poisoning nature of the "argument."
Not really. I liked McCain a lot before the last election, but considering the stands he has taken, and the crap he said/did for his part just to have a chance at securing this nomination has made me lose a lot of respect for him.
I wouldn't vote for him now, that's for sure, and it is at least in part because I feel he is hypocritical, particularly since he has spent the past 6 years stumping for the very people who attacked his character during his last attempt at a Presidency.
If he would do that just to have another chance, he wants it too bad and is willing to trade his integrity for votes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There might have been power sharing in the Senate, but Republicans were tyrannical in the House. They didn't have the same kind of power in the Senate, due to the rules that govern both houses of the Congress, but it's not like it mattered much.
It matters a lot when all these things are brought up to refute something else entirely. I said "I dont' expect the Republicans to be as generous with their tie-breaker this time around."
You also said there was power sharing, I wasn't sure if you were referring strictly to the Senate, or if you meant the whole Congress, as you weren't specific, especially in response to Dan's post.
That's all I was talking about, not the quote you provided.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan's post was a direct "Huh" to my use of "generous." And my use of "generous" was specifically about the Senate power-sharing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Then there's no disagreement
Though if I wanted to start one, I could say that power sharing in the Senate was meaningless if House Republicans continually changed legislation as it arrived from the Senate before Democrats had a crack at it, and lorded over Appropriations bills that the Senate couldn't start anyway, making the whole power sharing thing nothing but smoke and mirrors, paper tiger, flash in the pan, etc etc.
Strictly speaking though, you're right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the Democrats do retain control, I can propose my filibuster reforms again without the risk of sounding like I wanted to help the party I preferred when I was in power.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What are they?
I must have missed it the last time you proposed them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Too distracted right now.
I'll try to dig them out later. Two quick highlights: 1) each Senator takes an oath before every speech that what he has to say is important to the consideration of the bill. No penalties or evaluation - I just want them on the hook as saying "this is important debate." 2) The filibuster must be real - that is, it halts business until it's done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lyrhawn, I was too hasty about Dems keeping control. From the Post:
quote:In a 50-50 Senate, Vice President Cheney could break tie votes in the GOP's favor. But a Senate that becomes evenly split after it is in session would not necessarily fall to Republicans, Senate historians said. Rules and precedents could leave a party in charge of the chamber even after its membership falls below that of the other party.
"It's what happens in January that counts," said Senate associate historian Donald A. Ritchie, referring to when party leaders hash out rules governing the chamber's organization.
Rounds's office declined to comment on the situation yesterday except for a statement from the governor, which offered prayers for Johnson and hope for "good news for our friend and colleague."
I don't take this as given - Jeffords resulted in a change in control, so "Rules and precedents could leave a party in charge of the chamber even after its membership falls below that of the other party" is clearly not absolute. And there's little or no doubt that the Republicans could force a change if they ignored precedent - one Senate cannot bind another or even itself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder what they really have to gain by it. Leadership positions in the Senate are far, far less important than they are in the House. They might just let it go.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is looking like (crosses fingers) he may be okay...I hope so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I want him to be OK but reexamine his life, decide to spend more time with his family, and resign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I want him to be okay too. He might consider his duties in the senate too important to resign until he's up for reelection, which I think is in 2008. But that's up to him and his family.
But I haven't seen this mentioned yet: Senate rules don't allow for a Senator to be removed due to being incapacitated. In other words, if he's in a coma, or is unable to perform his duties, I don't believe he can be removed and a replacement appointed. I think he has to formally resign. His lack of participation would give the Democrats a 50-49 majority.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Dan's post was a direct "Huh" to my use of "generous." And my use of "generous" was specifically about the Senate power-sharing.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)