Web censorship bill sails through Senate committee

Daily Caller ^ | 11/19/2010 | Sam Gustin

[Lazamataz]

I don't think we have the money and organization for implementing an alternate network. That's an Enterprise-Level solution.

Do you have citable information that some sort of 'crackdown' is occuring after Thanksgiving? Last I heard the bill was dead on arrival.

[Still Thinking]

Does Kyl really believe Holder is an honorable man and will not abuse this??

Who cares? If he were the next one won't be. If we were guaranteed that every AG for the next 200 years will be an honest man, it's still too much power for the bad guys stolen from those of us with real jobs.

[Still Thinking]

Cornyn voted YES to approve it in committee, but his office says he will vote NO in the full Senate.Are you sure Kyl will vote YES in the full Senate? A phone call may be more effective than email.

If they believe it's a bad bill, letting it out into a larger venue where they can supposedly vote their conscience and yet the bill still pass, is inexcusable. They had in their hands the power to kill dead a bill they say they oppose, and they didn't do it. I suspect their no vote in the full Senate has more to do with preening their [fake] conservative creds so they can get reelected, but doing so at a time that won't endanger a vile bill. I actually don't care why they're doing it, as I said before, it's inexcusable.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I suspect their no vote in the full Senate has more to do with preening their [fake] conservative creds so they can get reelected, but doing so at a time that won't endanger a vile bill.

All the lobbyists care about is the final result. In the full senate, there are more arms to twist and more crooks to bribe, and those congress critters really want campaign funds.

I don't approve of digital piracy. I pay for downloading songs. But giving leftist political thug Holder the power to shut down websites?