I want you to observe how you responded to what I wrote.  I brought up one point, on extreme paranoia being observed, where you had one political candidate who supposed tried to play to a crowd that believes that the end is real near and we are going to flip into a politice state.  This is a worthy discussion, where it would be appropriate to address what I wrote and show that Angle was right in that we may be real close to needing to do second amendment remedies.  However, your response was one that is becoming increasingly common, and STRONGLY popping up here.  It became a chance to fire some salvos back.  It is defending by attacking and saying the other side stinks just as bad.  My post did NOT go into civility, and wasn't looking at that, but you changed it to civility.  I will say this type of partisan mentalty is too common, and won't enable an establishing of some base rules of civility.

Again, I didn't bring up civility, I brought up a perception in a number of circles that have people actually believing Obama is going to shut down the Internet any day now, and the turning of Net Neutrality into a power grab by the government to control the Internet.  All I can say is if, all this is true, individuals need to come out and show it, or shut up about it.

There is no scoreboard here, and no winner in this discussion.  Scoring imaginary points and winning an argument here won't make an inch of difference for anyone.  And I know it won't help me get a job.

Ok, time to morph this thread into a discussion of Pachter

Well, it was rather hard to tell whether you were talking about overheated rhetoric or paranoia. To be honest, it's often hard for me to suss out exactly what you're talking about. But either way, both were on full display during the Bush years. If it's so unnerving to you that people suspect there are communists in the government (which there may or may not be, now that Van Jones and Anita Dunn are gone), were you equally unnerved when so many on the left constantly insinuated that the Bush administration was comprised of Israel-firsters who would declare war on the entire Middle East for Greater Israel or some such nonsense? Maybe it's just the examples you use, but your concern only seems to flow in one direction.

Sharron Angle said the exact opposite of that, actually: that she hoped we weren't coming to the point where second amendment remedies would be necessary. You can interpret that as her suggesting that they are, in fact, necessary if you're so inclined - and you are, of course - but she said what she said.

Keeping in mind the fact that the FRC was formed to regulate radio frequencies and how the FCC went far beyond that original mandate to become a content-regulating body, I don't think it's so out there to assume the same can happen with the internet. Or that the temptation will be there, at least; regulatory creep is inevitable from regulatory creeps. Even a net neutrality supporter should find it worrisome that the FCC ignored the courts' repeated warnings that the internet is none of their business and decided to push ahead with this on a 3-2 vote strictly along party lines. It's like the Department of Agriculture deciding that you really need to mow your lawn and forcing you to do so.

Content control of cable networks is at least possible. Content control of the internet? Significantly less so. As we've seen even when there have been crackdowns on X or Y (like when the Mangakas and Japanese Publishers lashed out at the Scanlation websites), you can always retreat to the IRCs. Major content control of the internet would be a futile effort in any possible endeavor

I really don't see why not. You don't need to have complete control in order to have effective control. Even spotty enforcement would have a chilling effect. There's not a very good chance of any given filesharer being sued by the RIAA, but it sucks ass if you're in the 0.0001% of those who are. Similarly, not all child pornographers are caught, but everyone who is involved runs the risk.

It's not something I want to see the government ever involved in doing, and it's definitely not a power any regulatory body should be granting itself. The internet has done swimmingly so far, precisely because the government has largely stayed out of it.

I'm a Libertarian as well, though quite the moderate in comparison to most (even though I've been a member of the party since 1998).

There is a difference between freedom and respect for society. Pretty much, we all agree that licensing a driver, making sure they're insured, and THEN allowing them on our roadways is a good idea. You cannot trust the broke-ass freeloader to not run rampant on our roads in a broke-ass car, and damage, hurt, or kill another person.

The SAME, if not MORE, goes for carrying a firearm in public. Most of us, if need be, would obtain a license to carry a firearm in public, concealed or otherwise. We're law-abiding citizens (more on this later). I see people carry on about how it's appropriate to let the Constitution let 13 year olds carry a firearm. IT MAKES NO SENSE. They are not responsible adults. A simple test of firearm safety and compliance goes a long way.

The government's role in the world is to keep the populace safe and free (the mantra of the Libertarian Party). If that's the case, why do we embrace these laws that contradict that ideal so much? I'm not arguing for stricter gun laws, I'm arguing for reasonable conversation and examination of such laws.

@FreeTalkLive:

In most states, and historically in all of the US, there is no permit to own a gun.  Historically, there was no permit to carry a gun, although most states have no enacted such permits.

Society changes, and theoretically should become more civilised. With modern law enforcement there's no need for ordinary people to have such easy access to guns.

So is such states, such as New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and so on, a legal gun owner is someone that is legally allowed to own a gun.    This may mean no felonies on a person's record or no history of failing psychiatric evaluations.

Not good enough. This person should have to take a psychiatric evaluation before he's aloowed to own a gun. Things like the person's temper should be tested. And the person should have to take classes in order to learn how to use a gun before he's given a license and allowed to own one. Guns are dangerous. They're purpose is to harm or kill.

In the US, people are born with the right to own a gun.  Apparently, it is a right that can be removed but a right nontheless.  Owning a gun isn't like owning a TV, a car or a cell phone.  Those aren't rights.

And neither should owning a gun be a right. As I said, it's unnecessary in today's society.

The New Hampshire system isn't retarded.  In fact, I don't think that it legally goes far enough.  I don't think the gun laws in any of the US states are in line with the 2nd Amendment of the US Consitution just yet.  Hopefully in 10 years or so there will be a lot less gun laws in the US in general and NH too.

Form the sound of things this 2nd Amendment is archaic, and quite frankly retarded. Hopefully in 10 years there will be strcter laws, so that you gun lovin' American wackos don't kill eachother.

I understand you aren't from a place that prides itself as the most free place in the world, but that's what meaning of us are trying to do in NH.  It's understanding about you have so much faith in government and put safety before rights.  Where I come from, rights come first.  That's how I was able to defeat the proposed seat belt law in 2009 in NH.  Can you believe some people in government, they actually wanted to ticket adults if they didn't wear a seat belt in a car?  Heck, our state motto is Live Free or Die.  Many of us take it seriously.

You mean it's not illegal to not wear a seatbelt while driving? What's next? Being able to drive drunk? Being able to drive without a license? Being able to kill people? Your motto should be "Live Free, Die Like an Idiot". You can keep that freedom. With your perverse view of "freedom" and "rights" I suggest you moved to some remote place, outside of scoiety, where you'd be all alone and be able to live as "free" as you like. Many people take the ideea of living in a society seriously, and don't act like infantiles.

In what I wrote, I was looking at, first, that there are people out there whose paranoia of the government is such that it looks like it is increasingly detached from reality.  There are reasons to be concerned about things, but it looks liek a detachment.  Beyond this, it looks like it is becoming increasingly trendy to pander to this.  What happened last administration was that people who had "9/11 was an inside job" weren't pandered to by the media, or politicians.  But now, we get everything else as pandered?  And this is a thrust of what I am talking about.  You have a political candidate saying that, if the current congress continues to do what what it has been, people will look for second amendment remedies?  In short, they are going to get their guns, stage a revolution, and start mowing down officials in the government?  These are Angle's own words. In the minds of people I speak to, Net Neutrality becomes the equivalent of the government rounding up people without arresy warrants and shipping them off to secret prisions.   And Net Neutrality also gets fused with the stupid law that congress passed to give the president of the United States a "kill-switch" on the Internet to combat China.  At a Tea Partty meeting I attended, both were blurred together as the same thing.

Anyhow, here is a clip that contains Angle's own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9GXil9Vm8

I guess it depends on what you consider to be pandering, but I definitely think you're either practicing selective memory or holding the Republicans to a much, much higher standard than you are the Democrats. Check out any number of sites that had people on the ground at anti-war rallies back in the day (I'd recommend zombietime). There was a surfeit of loony shit being promoted at those things. Not only 9/11 conspiracies but out and out communism, a strain of anti-Zionism that smacked of straight up antisemitism, and of course, calls for violence against elected officials, particularly Bush. You also had prominent Democrats - among them our current president - speaking at these events, and it's funny, but I never heard of a single instance of one of these Democrats denouncing that sort of nonsense. You know, what Republicans are expected to do with the fringe elements of the Tea Party, whose worst excesses can't hold a candle to those of the anti-war movement.

What makes the whole thing truly galling to me is the hypocrisy of a media which frets about whether or not we're reaching a dangerous boiling point today but completely ignored this utter insanity back then (see Christopher Hitchens dressing them down for their sanitization of Cindy Sheehan as only Christopher Hitchens can). And actually, there's not only a Bush era vs. Obama era discrepancy in terms of media coverage, either. Every questionable sign at a tea party rally throws the whole enterprise into question and stands as a justification for the jaundiced eye with which the majority of the media perpetually views it. But when illegal immigrants and their boosters take to the streets by the thousands, waving foreign flags and using inflammatory, racist imagery? Why, you won't hear a peep. Probably because too many people in too many newsrooms find it a cute reminder of their days at Berkeley doing the same sort of thing.

"He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."

“I think he feels the people should be able to govern themselves,” said Ms. Figueroa, his former girlfriend. “We didn’t need a higher authority.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=3&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg