See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Question concerning Firefox and browsing history
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 10, 2010
Author: F.A. Hayek Fan
Post Date: 2010-11-10 12:44:44 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 1176
Comments: 136
I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: F.A. Hayek Fan, Pinguinite (#0)
I don't, but I'm guessing Neil might.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry. If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it. You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.
If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it. i agree with Paul on this one.
If firefox is well written, then it shouldn't be possible to retrieve the history after the history is purged. Countermeasures would be installing some kind of spyware. A simple one would just copy the browser cache every 5 mins to some alternate place where it wouldn't get purged by firefox. Good luck raising a teen.
Thanks. "One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Firefox IS well written; still it uses the IE internet cache. So to answer F.A. Hayek Fan's original question, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES, assuming the IE Internet cache is not also erased. Reading the IE Internet cache requires a viewer, though.
Whatever cache it uses, it obviously erases it, whether it's the MSIE cache or not. And just off hand, I'd say that if it uses the MSIE cache instead of it's own, then it's NOT well written. On linux, it doesn't use the MSIE cache. (Of course on linux, there is no MSIE cache, unless maybe it's running under WINE).
In the past, I've viewed the cache with just a regular window browser. You can't really see the intact HTML pages, but all the images are there, and if the goal is just to see if porn pics are there, you do not need anything special.
No it doesn't under Windows and I am assuming F.A. Hayek Fan uses windows. That is why you enjoy Linux. You don't want all those stinking files cluttering up your HDDs while enjoying the simplicity of use. Typically, you can find your IE cache here: "C:Documents and SettingsAdministratorLocal SettingsTemporary Internet Files" .... again you require a viewer.
I'm with you two on this.
PaulCJ never answered F.A. Hayek Fan's original technical question. So why do you think PaulCJ's moral principles of social conduct or behaviour trump a perfectly good technical question?
No one said anything about trumping except you. An observation was made with which Christine and I happen to agree. I have nothing to contribute to the coding, viewing, IE, Firefox question.
Has FA asks his son directly beforehand about looking at porn? Looking him directly in the eye and ask the question. To go behind someone's back is not moral. Such hypocrisy is the reason we have so many problems in the world.
The Shadow Knows. Bwhahahahahaha!
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
To go behind someone's back is not moral. Such hypocrisy is the reason we have so many problems in the world. Are your questions/considerations pertinent to F.A. Hayek Fan's original technical question? I don't think so. Your moral considerations are meaningless to F.A. Hayek Fan's considerations. How do you know he hasn't already had the dialogue you discuss? Aren't YOU fabricating HOT_AIRE without addressing the initial point of view by F.A. Hayek Fan?
Attaboy buckie. Speculations based on speculations. Your logic is flawless. Totally absent too.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I don't. And neither do you. But, you would walk in blindly into doing immoral acts, such as going behind people's backs, without asking for details beforehand. While I ask for, and point out details. I believe in making an "informed decision" before taking action. You do not.
Your logic is flawless. Totally absent too. Let's review F.A. Hayek Fan's post: He wasn't asking for a moral lecture or advice; he was demonstrating or establishing HIS requirement for technical discussion on a specific detail of interest. The moral conduct of F.A. Hayek Fan's family is HIS own concern not mine, or yours or Paul, or christine or tom, dick or harry. And the technical question is justified for more reasons than anyone wants to consider, too. Everywhere on the Internet you go is monitored by several US government agencies; today the issue might be porn; tomorrow it might be making a bomb; it is appropriate that EVERYONE KNOWS HOW TO guard their respective private equipment, especially since the PatriotAct of 2001. Cleaning your own equipment cache or understanding how it exists is good stuff to know. I am glad F.A. Hayek Fan brought it up.
So why did you decide to impose your own moral principles into a technical question? Sorry charlie, I discussed technical considerations NOT YOU. You imposed some fucked-upped dialogue that is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. And your often spouted moral principals go no-where with me. Here is your POST#2: Where did you answer the TECHNICAL question? Ohhhhh, it was too easy to FORCE your moral principals into a pile of blabbering BULLSHIT. You don't know diddly-squat.
Let's hope that the kiddies dont find about truecrypt and hidden volumes, using a USB drive to surf off of when the subject matter gets a little too "controversial" etc... Forget I said that. Just forget it. Dont want to give them any funny ideas.
#2. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?
#3. To: PaulCJ, F. A. Hayek (#2)
Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.
#4. To: Original_Intent (#1)
#5. To: Pinguinite, F.A. Hayek Fan (#4)
"Raising a teenager is like trying to nail jelly to a tree." ~ Unk.
#6. To: Pinguinite, F.A. Hayek Fan, Original_Intent (#4)
If firefox is well written, then it shouldn't be possible to retrieve the history after the history is purged.
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
Firefox IS well written; still it uses the IE internet cache. So to answer F.A. Hayek Fan's original question, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES, assuming the IE Internet cache is not also erased.
#8. To: buckeroo (#6)
Reading the IE Internet cache requires a viewer, though.
#9. To: Pinguinite, F.A. Hayek Fan (#7)
Whatever cache it uses, it obviously erases it, whether it's the MSIE cache or not.
#10. To: christine, PaulCJ, 4 (#3)
#11. To: Lod, F.A. Hayek Fan, PaulCJ, christine (#10)
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
#13. To: buckeroo (#11)
So why do you think PaulCJ's moral principles of social conduct or behaviour trump a perfectly good technical question?
#14. To: buckeroo, Lod, F.A. Hayek Fan, PaulCJ, christine (#11)
So why do you think PaulCJ's moral principles of social conduct or behaviour trump a perfectly good technical question?
#15. To: PaulCJ, F.A. Hayek Fan (#13)
Has FA asks his son directly beforehand about looking at porn? Looking him directly in the eye and ask the question.
#16. To: buckeroo, Lod, F.A. Hayek Fan, PaulCJ, christine (#15)
#17. To: buckeroo (#15)
How do you know he hasn't already had the dialogue you discuss?
#18. To: Original_Intent, F.A. Hayek Fan (#16)
Attaboy buckie. Speculations based on speculations.
I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?
#19. To: PaulCJ (#17)
I don't. And neither do you.
But, you would walk in blindly into doing immoral acts, such as going behind people's backs, without asking for details beforehand. While I ask for, and point out details.
Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.
If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it.
You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.
I believe in making an "informed decision" before taking action. You do not.
#20. To: buckeroo (#18)
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files
”I say to each man and woman, you are unique and sovereign, the center of a universe. However right I may be in thinking as I do, you may be equally right in thinking otherwise. You can only accomplish your object in life by complete disregard of the opinions of other people.“ - Aleister Crowley
#21. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0) (Edited)
You can view porn online? Do all of you know about this?
~~~~~~~
Best Movie Monologue
Defensive Racism Has Its Place
#22. To: buckeroo (#19)
Because "moral principles", or lack there of, were stated within the "technical question" itself.
So why did you decide to impose your own moral principles into a technical question?
#23. To: wakeup (#21)
Porn? Online? Who knew? Thanks.
#24. To: Lod (#23)
A view a day keeps me alert and remembering what life was all about.
#25. To: PaulCJ, F.A. Hayek Fan, Lod, christine, Original_Intent, PSUSA (#22)
You remind me of those anti-constitutionalists that argue about the requirements of and about the Second Amendment. F.A. Hayek Fan posted an establishment preamble that has only meaning to his technical question. On review: Here is what F.A. Hayek Fan asked: His reasons are his business in establishing a premise. But all you did in post#2 was distract away from his interest. Now, let's look at the Second Amendment which is largely neglected in the SAME WAY (or contextual argument) you attempted to distract F.A. Hayek Fan's post: You have garbled F.A. Hayek Fan's meaning similar to Handgun Control Inc. You think because of establishing a forward or principle towards the issue permits some sort of distraction. You are a bumbling, babbling idiot PaulCJ. No wonder you can't get it quite right yet ... you are always distracted because you can't read.
Because "moral principles", or lack there of, were stated within the "technical question" itself.
I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
#26. To: Cynicom (#24)
I'm always learning something new and stimulating on 4.
#27. To: PaulCJ (#13)
Kind of like talking about someone while having them on your bozo list so that they are unable to respond to you or insisting that others fight and die for the war you support while you sit on the computer in your parents house nice and safe. You know nothing of morality but are thoroughly familiar with hypocrisy.
To go behind someone's back is not moral. Such hypocrisy is the reason we have so many problems in the world.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#28. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
Boys who aren't interested in porn turn into serial killers. Relax, he's totally normal.
"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson
#29. To: christine (#3)
I do not believe that I am "having a heart attack over it." Like the overwhelming majority of parents in this country, I do not want my son looking at pornography. He says he isn't, and maybe he's not, but I would like to be sure. 16 year old boys are horny enough without subjecting themselves to pornography everyday.
i agree with Paul on this one.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#30. To: Turtle (#28)
Whether he is normal of not is not the point.
Boys who aren't interested in porn turn into serial killers. Relax, he's totally normal.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#31. To: All (#0)
For those that answered my original question, thank you.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#32. To: Cynicom (#24)
Sweet Jeebus! We're going to have to change your name to Dirtyom.
A view a day keeps me alert and remembering what life was all about.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#33. To: Esso, Lod (#32)
Well, I was doin fine til Sir Lod sent me sumpin bad last week. I had to do the viewing afore I deleted them, dont you know?
Sweet Jeebus! We're going to have to change your name to Dirtyom.
#34. To: Cynicom, Esso, 4 (#33)
As some judge or justice, once remarked, "I know porn when I see it." These things bear our personal investigation to see if they are true, or not.
#35. To: Lod (#34)
You are leading Esso down the Primrose path, at his early age.
These things bear our personal investigation to see if they are true, or not.
#36. To: Cynicom, Esso, 4 (#35)
Back when sex education was being introduced into the pubic school system, and commenting on the great outcry that arose, some pundit commented, "We don't need any classes on sex education, let'em learn it in the gutter, like I did." It would have saved us tons of money had his advice been followed. We only existed for thousands of years without any classroom explanations...
#37. To: Lod (#36)
Many of my teachers were unable to teach the subjects they were paid to teach.
We only existed for thousands of years without any classroom explanations...
#38. To: Cynicom (#35)
Don't worry, Dad. Until the internet shows some potential beyond simple text, I'll stick with my dial-up connection. I don't really care for all that video crap anyway. Makes the internet too much like TeeVee for my taste.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#39. To: Esso (#38)
I shot my TV years ago, b est thing I ever did.
#40. To: Esso (#38)
As was said, don't knock it, 'till you've tried it. After having ATT's semi-fast 5mbs, I'm going to go with TW cable, and hope to get 20, or better. The cost is the same, it will just require some cabling to the machine.
#41. To: buckeroo (#25)
You remind me of those rabid teachers that were more concerned with disciplining children, than teaching children.
You remind me of those anti-constitutionalists that argue about the requirements of and about the Second Amendment.
#42. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#27)
You are ignorant of both. It you have a possible problem, you face it directly, eye to eye. Any other way ends in tragedy.
You know nothing of morality but are thoroughly familiar with hypocrisy.
#43. To: PaulCJ (#41)
Lets take another peek at your own #2 post, shall we? You are a fool, PaulCJ. What do want me to do on the Internet, beg a bailiff to whack your pee-pee (borrowed cliché from Arlo Guthrie's infamous ... Alice's Restaurant)?
You remind me of those rabid teachers that were more concerned with disciplining children, than teaching children.
Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.
If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it.
You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.
#44. To: Pinguinite (#7)
Sorry to ask you another question. Why do some posts on 4um run outside the margins requiring one to scan back and forth to read them? When this happens, I just forget that post and the replys and move on. To me they are a waste of banwidth and a persons time.
#45. To: Lod, Cynicom, Esso (#34)
These things bear our personal investigation to see if they are true, or not. You know you are getting up there when you remember jokes dependent upon obsolete technology. As some judge or justice, once remarked, "I know porn when I see it."
"But gee, I don't even own a Pornograph."
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#46. To: LACUMO (#44)
Because some element in such articles or threads are not subject to proper wrapping, such as very wide pictures or, sometimes, web addresses that are a mile long. Browsers routinely expand a view window beyond the screen width in those cases, and then set word wrapping of text at that width. To deal with it with the software would require some fancy stuff beyond ordinary HTML. It's really the responsibility of the person posting to watch out for that, but it shouldn't be a big problem as ordinary content, with photos or not, shouldn't do that. I agree.
Why do some posts on 4um run outside the margins requiring one to scan back and forth to read them?
When this happens, I just forget that post and the replys and move on. To me they are a waste of banwidth and a persons time.
#47. To: buckeroo (#43)
I understand human nature. And I was pointing out, barring a few exceptions, this was not as bad as some would think. There are far, far worse things than porn. And two others people on this board agree with me. buckeroo, grow up and realize that people are human beings, and not walking robots with no emotions.
You are a fool, PaulCJ. What do want me to do on the Internet, beg a bailiff to whack your pee-pee (borrowed cliché from Arlo Guthrie's infamous ... Alice's Restaurant)?
#48. To: buckeroo (#43)
That was a Cheech and Chong piece, I believe it was "Trippin in Court." The judge said "Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!"
beg a bailiff to whack your pee-pee (borrowed cliché from Arlo Guthrie's infamous ... Alice's Restaurant)?
#49. To: PaulCJ, F.A. Hayek Fan (#47)
Sure.. the framework of F.A. Hayek Fan's original post weas fairly simple to read: And you attempted to clobber F.A. Hayek Fan in post #2: You are a laff a minute, pal. You are diversionary to this thread similar to both the Republicans or Democrats attempting to impose some sort of POWER trip under the guise of moral principle... you are kinda like GWBush begging for a "compassionate conservatives".
buckeroo, grow up and realize that people are human beings, and not walking robots with no emotions.
I have reason to believe that my 16 y.o. son is looking at porn on his laptop. However, he knows how to go to the history tool bar and delete his browsing history. Is there another way that I can look at the browsing history?
Your son is sixteen years old, if he isn't looking at porn, you should worry.
If it is not rape, snuff, or child porn, don't give yourself a heart attack over it.
You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.
#50. To: PaulCJ (#42)
You have zero idea of what you are talking about. You assume that because I asked the question about Firefox that I did not speak with my son about the subject. That is an assumption based upon no facts whatsoever. However, you are dead wrong. I did ask. We had long talk about the subject. However I am a proponent of trust and verify and I don't give a shit if some immoral neocon such as yourself approves or not.
It you have a possible problem, you face it directly, eye to eye. Any other way ends in tragedy.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#51. To: PaulCJ (#47)
There are far, far worse things than porn. And two others people on this board agree with me. buckeroo, grow up and realize that people are human beings, and not walking robots with no emotions. Regardless of what you and others on this board believe, the overwhelming majority of parents do not approve of their children viewing pornography on the internet.
I understand human nature. And I was pointing out, barring a few exceptions, this was not as bad as some would think.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#52. To: buckeroo (#49)
I'm thinking that PaulCJ is either teenage boy or a pedophile who lures teenage boys to his home by using pornography.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#53. To: buckeroo, all, f. a. hayek fan (#25)
you are correct. the guy asked a technical question. everyone piping in about how a porn addiction is good for his son and how a parent has no moral right to monitor their children are insane whackos. the end, no further bickering needed. Next?
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#54. To: Pinguinite (#46)
Thank you!
To deal with it with the software would require some fancy stuff beyond ordinary HTML. It's really the responsibility of the person posting to watch out for that, but it shouldn't be a big problem as ordinary content, with photos or not, shouldn't do that.
#55. To: Artisan (#53)
How come libertarians aren't considered responsible both personally, family, business and socially and yet the well-practised democrats and their own counter-parts, the republicans, are?
Next?
#56. To: Original_Intent (#45)
Good point. To quote the oldies, you're either an oldie, or very, very, well read. I'll cop to the former, and some of the latter.
You know you are getting up there when you remember jokes dependent upon obsolete technology.
#57. To: buckeroo (#55)
i am almost leery of identifying myself as a libertarian. people like schwarzenegger, socialist statists who like fag 'marriage' & killing unborn babies are referred to as libertarians. they are disgusting as that gary nolan character who thinks he has hope for the presidency. i prefer the label paleoconservative. most people never heard of that though. it will confuse them.much of the general public, when they hear the term libertarian, conjure up someone who they think just doesnt like rules.
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#58. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#52) (Edited)
Says the person whom states family matters publicly. You asked two questions, in one question. You indirectly asked if it was okay to go behind your son's back, otherwise, you have just asks how to get a history folder back without giving details. If you think your son is looking at porn, be a man and ask him directly. Don't go behind his back. He is sixteen, according you. Legally speaking, if he committed a crime, he would be charged as an adult. The government considers him mature enough to know right and wrong from a legal standpoint. I will hold him to the same standard. This is not a ten year old we are talking about. The hard fact is, at sixteen, if a boy is not thinking about girls and sex at least occasionally, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with him.
I'm thinking that PaulCJ is either teenage boy or a pedophile who lures teenage boys to his home by using pornography.
#59. To: Artisan (#57)
And, as a result, you are afraid of individual rights, liberties and freedoms while clinging onto gossip, innuendo and mass paranoia. Or, did you mean something else and I interpreted your perspective incorrectly?
i am almost leery of identifying myself as a libertarian.
#60. To: PaulCJ (#58)
I asked one question and one question only. If I had wanted to know the opinion of a moral degenerate such as yourself I would have asked for your opinion. If you think your son is looking at porn, be a man and ask him directly. Don't go behind his back. You go from making unfounded assumptions based on no facts whatsoever to outright accusations based on no facts whatsoever. He is sixteen, according you. Legally speaking, if he committed a crime, he would be charged as an adult. The government considers him mature enough to know right and wrong from a legal standpoint. I will hold him to the same standard. This is not a ten year old we are talking about. The hard fact is, at sixteen, if a boy is not thinking about girls and sex at least occasionally, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with him. The law does not consider a 16 year old boy old enough to view pornography. Neither do I. The fact that you do matters not a whit.
You asked two questions, in one question. You indirectly asked if it was okay to go behind your son's back, otherwise, you have just asks how to get a history folder back without giving details.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#61. To: buckeroo (#59)
the libertarian label in the mind of the average american conjures up an ideology that is not consistent with my own. hence if i tell someone im a libertarian, i explain that simply means i support liberty. that does not mean i am afraid of freedom. it means that most people dont even know what the term means.
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#62. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#51)
You really don't get what I am saying to you. It isn't the porn I am talking about. It is the going behind the back of you son that is the problem. This is how the mentality of those in government thinking it alright to spy on on people of their own nation gets started. It is a lack of trust. A lack of trust that starts a home. A lack of trust where people don't have the courage to You want to invade someone else privacy. That is no difference between immorality a cop searching a person's home, and a parent searching their teenager. You want to get proof before confronting you son, because you don't trust you son AT ALL! Because you believe the government commercials that it is okay invade someone else's privacy. This is how some of the major problems in our nation got started. A COMPLETE LACK OF TRUST AT HOME!! This level of decay in the morality of this nation disgusts me. You ask your son point blank, weather he is looking at porn, without going behind his back, one of two things will happen. Either he will admit to you, and you can discuss, like a parent and child should. Or, he will lie. If he lies to you, he will likely quit looking at porn for a while. If you present that you went behind his back, you will have a make argument with your son that will likely lead to more problems THAT ARE WORSE THAN WHAT YOU WORRY ABOUT NOW!! You son may need you in a life or death situation for himself in the future, and if he cannot trust you now, he will not trust you then, which will make the situation he will be in worse. I watched my younger brother sever all ties with my family due to a situation like what you are creating. I saw how it started, I don't want to see that happen again. I miss him a lot, but there is no way I can contact him.
Regardless of what you and others on this board believe, the overwhelming majority of parents do not approve of their children viewing pornography on the internet.
#63. To: Artisan (#61)
That was an excellent post, Artisan. You explained why many of us are so ashamedly meek and afraid to step out and voice a personal opinion.
the libertarian label in the mind of the average american conjures up an ideology that is not consistent with my own. hence if i tell someone im a libertarian, i explain that simply means i support liberty. that does not mean i am afraid of freedom. it means that most people dont even know what the term means.
#64. To: PaulCJ (#62) (Edited)
You have a severe reading comprehension problem. I stated back in my post 29 to Christine that I had talked to him. I also told you that I already talked to him in post 50, yet you keep on making these nonsensical accusations. This level of decay in the morality of this nation disgusts me. LOL! You are defending a child's ability to look at pornography unmolested and you want to talk about the decay of morality? You are a nut job, plain and simple.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#65. To: PaulCJ, F.A. Hayek Fan (#62)
Either he will admit to you, and you can discuss, like a parent and child should. Or, he will lie. If he lies to you, he will likely quit looking at porn for a while. How do you know there are only two ways of presentation? You have no facts at all. Suppose F.A. Hayek Fan's next door neighbour or his own son's girl-friend came sneaking into the son's room wanting to use the laptop for their own carnal sins? HELL, perhaps it was your own wife (PaulCJ) because you don't give her any Good&Plenty? As is always, you have two ways of looking at things... and there is an entire spectrum of considerations that are beyond your own capabilities to grasp.
You ask your son point blank, weather [sic] he is looking at porn, without going behind his back, one of two things will happen.
#66. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#64)
You really don't understand what I am saying. The moral decay in the nation is a lack of trust at every level, and that begins at home.
You are defending a child's ability to look at pornography unmolested and you want to talk about the decay of morality?
#67. To: buckeroo (#65)
As is always, you have two ways of looking at things... and there is an entire spectrum of considerations that are beyond your own capabilities to grasp. Your lack of skills in reading is showing. The first post I made on this thread I stated: You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get his girlfriend pregnant.
How do you know there are only two ways of presentation? You have no facts at all. Suppose F.A. Hayek Fan's next door neighbour or his own son's girl-friend came sneaking into the son's room wanting to use the laptop for their own carnal sins? HELL, perhaps it was your own wife (PaulCJ) because you don't give her any Good&Plenty?
#68. To: PaulCJ (#66)
Who the HELL are you to suggest that idea? Do you think you lead some sort of moral life and does your family abide by your observations?
The moral decay in the nation is a lack of trust at every level, and that begins at home.
#69. To: PaulCJ (#67)
You posted two ways of looking at a possible problem. I say your methods are fallacious; you are ridiculous and you don't know what you are talking about.
#70. To: Pinguinite, F.A. Hayek Fan, buckeroo (#4)
Very similar to what I told him privately.
Countermeasures would be installing some kind of spyware. A simple one would just copy the browser cache every 5 mins to some alternate place where it wouldn't get purged by firefox.
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!!
#71. To: Lod, Esso (#40)
I love my cable. I'll cut my food to crackers and water before I cut my cable.
After having ATT's semi-fast 5mbs, I'm going to go with TW cable, and hope to get 20, or better.
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!!
#72. To: buckeroo (#55)
Now there is a profound question. One to which I would like an answer.
How come libertarians aren't considered responsible both personally, family, business and socially and yet the well-practised democrats and their own counter-parts, the republicans, are?
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!!
#73. To: buckeroo (#68)
So you believe that honesty and trust are outdated concepts? All your preaching of "morality" and you don't even understand the meaning of the word.
Who the HELL are you to suggest that idea? Do you think you lead some sort of moral life and does your family abide by your observations?
#74. To: Artisan, buckeroo (#57)
I prefer the term classic liberal as that is the true label. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[2] Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo.[3] There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[4] The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[5] The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended.i prefer the label paleoconservative. most people never heard of that though. it will confuse them.much of the general public, when they hear the term libertarian, conjure up someone who they think just doesnt like rules.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1] It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties.[1]
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!!
#75. To: farmfriend (#74)
if you told the typical republican tea partier your views on war, torture, taxes, 911, etc , theyd declare you a 'librul' anyway, & you could insist they add 'classical' to it. of course they would have no clue as to what it meant :-)
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#76. To: Artisan (#75)
stupidity is everywhere.
Tough women come from New York, sweet women from Texas, prissy women from Southern California, but we NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WOMEN have fire & ice in our blood. We can ride 4-wheelers, be a princess, throw a left hook, pack heat, hunt with the men, bake a cake, love with passion, and if we have an opinion, you know you're going to hear it!!
#77. To: farmfriend, Artisan (#76)
It's the new national pastime.
stupidity is everywhere.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#78. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#60)
Attaboy. Hold your ground. Basically I am on your side, and not because I am prude, as I am not. The Pornography industry subsists on degradation. Degradation of the girls who are the "object" and the customer as well. There is nothing wrong with sex, it's good sweaty fun. However, pornography plays on the darker side of human relations and as such it unwholesome. Not because represents sex, but because it misrepresents sex. I could get more graphic but won't. However, doing his girlfriend, or in this day and age vice versa, is less problematic than pornography.
The law does not consider a 16 year old boy old enough to view pornography. Neither do I. The fact that you do matters not a whit.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#79. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0) (Edited)
Firefox cache/history is in the following location in Windows: C:Documents and Settings/"username"/Local Settings/Application Data/MozillaFirefox/Profiles/"number-character-string".default/Cache The best way to read it, is to simply open Firefox and type in "about:cache" to see what comes up. Firefox 3.5 and 3.6 has gotten really good at cleaning up after itself. You can go to Tools > Clear Recent History and use a drop down arrow to clean out your viewing for the last hour, two hours, etc., and on up to everything. A really smart person would only dust their tracks for the time they were doing their nefarious deeds. A 16 year old is likely to go for the shotgun approach and dust everyone's tracks for the past 6 months. Doing the "about:cache" would probably show you the difference. For instance, if you saw a history through Sunday and then everything past that has suddenly vanished. Check the Firefox log again on Friday and see the log goes back to Thursday and everything past that has now mysteriously vanished. Not only that, but Firefox (think starting with 3.4 or 3.5) has a feature called Private Browsing. Tools > Start Private Browsing and when you are done you can either close Firefox or Tools > Stop Private Browsing. Your tracks for that session are supposedly blown away. Another end-round is that your home router may have a log enabled that is keeping track of the last 50-100 sites visited. Get your router name and model, hit Google and see anyone knows about logs for it and how to set them if possible. My Linksys has it turned off by default. The only catch to this is if you or anyone is running Tor or some kind of anonymizer, the router may not see the sites really being visited. Otherwise, you may be looking at having to find some kind of keylogger program.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
#80. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#29)
after reading this thread, i feel guilty about my comment. i do think, however, if you've asked your son and he told you no that it would be best to take him at his word rather than checking on his computer. that, to me, would be like reading his diary or mail. should he learn that you did that, i would think that would be more damaging than his viewing pornography.
#81. To: PaulCJ (#62)
Oh my you would really hate me and think I am out of line!!! But then again when it comes to MY KIDS I don't really care what you or anyone else really thinks. I will and would watch my kids like a hawk. If I do not know what they are doing then I can't correct them. You must have been quite the angelic kid when you were growing up because most of the parents I know do not want their kids to mess up and go in the direction they did when they were teens. We want better for our kids. But then again parents were not to bright in the 60's, 70's, and even early 80's. They were clueless. As long as a parent is legally responsible for their kids they have every right to know what they are doing. Who is paying for the internet? Who is paying for the electricity? Who is paying for the home? Who has paid for the kid his whole life and invested much time and love in the kid? Who will be heartbroken and care if that kid is in trouble? Who will the kid call when trouble is there? You or their parent? You know everyone does not watch porn. I would not want to be with someone who had those types of sexual problems. I would not want my kids to have those type of problems. It is not healthy. I have seen a few marriages and relationships break up over this. And usually the dudes that are watching the porn are inadequate.....at least according to what I have heard.
#82. To: MiracleRose7 (#81)
Someone should have warned you that PaulCJ is a 3rd Grader.
"Politics and Religion are the building blocks of slavery and oppression. Greed is the mortar that bonds them" and bankers are the masons with trowels in hand !
#83. To: Lod (#56)
I'll cop to the former, and some of the latter. Since you are only slightly my elder I'll follow your lead. ;-)
To quote the oldies, you're either an oldie, or very, very, well read.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
#84. To: MiracleRose7 (#81)
Who is paying for the internet? Who is paying for the electricity? Who is paying for the home? Who has paid for the kid his whole life and invested much time and love in the kid? Who will be heartbroken and care if that kid is in trouble? Who will the kid call when trouble is there? You or their parent? very good points.
As long as a parent is legally responsible for their kids they have every right to know what they are doing.
#85. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
There were a few years when I couldn't appeal to my son's better angels, and thwarting my wishes and winning the approval of his peers was his reason to live. You can either take the laptop or let him pass through the period where he does what he must. Nothing you do will decide if he is to be a lifelong porn addict. I dare say that the question is already decided regardless of what you do now. If you tell him that he's on his own and he will suffer the consequences and stop verbalizing your concern for him, after an initial period of celebration he may begin to worry about what unseen hazards befall him, especially without your guidance and concern. Nothing will drive the point home more than when his peers inevitably pile up on the rocks. And it may be that nothing you say will alert him to the dangers before that happens and opens his eyes. If your son is smart enough to grasp the abstract then you may explain it once-the objectification of women in porn can destroy a young man's ability to ever bond and love someone, and if that happens he will forfeit one of life's greatest gifts. No woman he could ever love would want to spend her wedding night spinning in a Chinese basket job. And if he ruins his young soul he may have to pay a Filipino hooker with 10,000 satisfied customers to fulfill his needs. If he's at the point where he knows everything then this means that you cannot protect him from certain dangers that he does not yet recognize. And, if he's operating a motor vehicle then you should really be concerned. In my state broken hearted parents and kids erect roadside memorials at each location where carloads of kids have died. These ominous monuments carry more weight than all the lectures I've ever given. Some kids will still make the same old mistakes just as some parents will buy cars and pay the insurance for kids who are clearly not mature enough for the responsibility. I could only hope that my son was among the fraction of those who saw the signs and flowers and got the message. He'll be 25 next month and out of the statistical danger zone.
The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses._Solzhenitsyn
#86. To: MiracleRose7 (#81)
If you are watching them like a hawk, then you would know what they are doing. Without trust there cannot be family. And those government anti-drug commercials are poison in they state lies that it is okay not to trust one another among a family.
I will and would watch my kids like a hawk. If I do not know what they are doing then I can't correct them.
#87. To: wakeup (#21)
Do all of you know about this? Ah.. so you're right. So that's why Google have the option switching Safe Search off! And it's amazing what one can see - not only can we see women's breasts, but their intimate area further down. I see there are now women who even shave that area. There's even durty pictirs of men having sex with those women! And videos too! lmao ;)
You can view porn online?
From Blank Cheque Ireland... to Bounced Cheque Ireland.
#88. To: PaulCJ, christine, Lod, F.A. Hayek Fan (#47) (Edited)
Well you lost christine in post #80. So that leaves Lod. BTW, can't you stand on your own legs voicing a personal opinion without some sort of phantasmal, flag-waving requirement to cheer you on? You were trounced on this thread. And brutally beaten to a pulp of mere fluid DNA.
And two others people on this board agree with me.
#89. To: HOUNDDAWG (#85)
well said. imo, that's the best advice as to how to handle the situation.
If you tell him that he's on his own and he will suffer the consequences and stop verbalizing your concern for him, after an initial period of celebration he may begin to worry about what unseen hazards befall him, especially without your guidance and concern. Nothing will drive the point home more than when his peers inevitably pile up on the rocks. And it may be that nothing you say will alert him to the dangers before that happens and opens his eyes. If your son is smart enough to grasp the abstract then you may explain it once-the objectification of women in porn can destroy a young man's ability to ever bond and love someone, and if that happens he will forfeit one of life's greatest gifts.
#90. To: buckeroo (#88) (Edited)
As opposed to you, whom has only throwns insults at every chance possible. By not answering my question, you admit that you believe that honesty and trust are outdated concepts. I pity you for a number of reasons. Including the above. Another reason, buckeroo, is you love to inflate your sad ego by pinging several people when you reply to me. Just because you ping them, you automatically think they agree with you. Unless they state otherwise, they probably don't give a damn about what either of us say. And you dragging them into this argument only makes you even a more sadder excuse for a person than you already are.
BTW, can't you stand on your own legs voicing a personal opinion without some sort of phantasmal, flag-waving requirement to cheer you on?
#91. To: PaulCJ (#90)
Insults? Where on this thread has one insult been thrown? You are misplacing criticism about your own attempt to force some sort of moral opinion when none is required. But, please feel free to review the entire thread and show one insult that you feel I elicited towards you or anyone.
#92. To: buckeroo (#91) (Edited)
I see you cannot even read. Here are some of the insults you have stated. Post 19: You imposed some fucked-upped dialogue that is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. Post 25: You are a bumbling, babbling idiot PaulCJ. No wonder you can't get it quite right yet ... you are always distracted because you can't read. Post 43: You are a fool, PaulCJ.
Where on this thread has one insult been thrown?
#93. To: PaulCJ (#92)
But my writing capability is at question since you feel I have thrown insult(s) towards you. Again, show me the insults.
#94. To: buckeroo (#93)
See post 92.
But my writing capability is at question since you feel I have thrown insult(s) towards you. Again, show me the insults.
#95. To: PaulCJ (#94)
Post 25: You are a bumbling, babbling idiot PaulCJ. No wonder you can't get it quite right yet ... you are always distracted because you can't read. Post 43: You are a fool, PaulCJ. Those comments aren't insults; collectively they are ATTA_BOYZ about yourself and your awkward capability and capacity to see yourself. You take it all wrong ... those kind remarcks are just my considerate way of suggesting you are a cretin. Relax and take it easy.
Post 19: You imposed some fucked-upped dialogue that is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
#96. To: buckeroo (#95)
Yes, they are insults. You really do want to debate the meaning of "is". If you don't realize what demeaning statements are than you really are not ready to even understand what morality is.
Those comments aren't insults;
#97. To: PaulCJ (#96)
Well so far, I have been very kind and thoughtful to you, as though I were petting a dawg before throwing them a bone, now however, I am re-thinking my strategy altogether. So what is your take on morality? Do you feel you are well versed in these moral principles and characteristics to discuss the subject that you continuously want to bring up in an intelligent way? I don't think so..... so far, you want to impose some sort of iron-will that goes nowhere with me. But lets hear you take, anyways.
If you don't realize what demeaning statements are than you really are not ready to even understand what morality is.
#98. To: HOUNDDAWG (#85)
That was an excellent post, Dawg.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#99. To: PaulCJ, christine, Lod, Cynicom, James Deffenbach, noone222, Turtle, Jethro Tull, *Destroying the Middle Class* (#2)
:-o
You should probably be more worried about the possibility that you son might accidentally get *registered at Free Republic or LibertyPost*.
__________________________________________________________
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#100. To: X-15 (#99)
LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#101. To: PaulCJ (#86)
I will and would watch my kids like a hawk. If I do not know what they are doing then I can't correct them. If you are watching them like a hawk, then you would know what they are doing. Without trust there cannot be family. And those government anti-drug commercials are poison in they state lies that it is okay not to trust one another among a family. You just keep on blindly trusting everyone!!! You are very naive. Are you even a parent and how old are you children. If you do have kids you do know that you will be held legally responsible for their actions. We are a family and a good one. You do obviously not understand or see that outside influences are consistently bombarding our children. It takes time and maturity for children to consistently make the right decisions. I have seen children that do not have the guidance and the parental mentality of let them handle it (before they are ready). Bad decisions, or peer pressure can ruin a kid for the rest of their lives. I have invested too many years, tears, love, time, effort, and money in my kids just to let some loon and word play games try to manipulate or dictate my position. I have a 19 year old son making good decisions and who is very responsible. Guess what ….he did not get into that dumb stuff. He was busy with Christian Karate, school, work, youth group, and other productive activities.
To: MiracleRose7
#102. To: christine (#84)
Thanks Christine. My kids and their futures will hopefully bring me joy because they will be happy, well adjusted, and doing productive things that enhance their lives.
#103. To: X-15, F. A. Hayek Fan (#99)
see X's post. LOL.
#104. To: Hounddawg (#89)
The only problem with that is what if it is your kid that is the one that ends up on the bottom of the rock pile. That is a pain that no parent wants to see or experience and most will attempt to prevent that from happening. What you say makes much sense but some kids don't get it as early as others and therefore need more. Later they will appreciate it if you keep them out of the bottom of the rock pile when they see where there friends who have chosen that path are.
#105. To: christine, X-15, (#103)
LOL! Ain't that the truth. If he's posting on LP or FR than I know it's a lost cause. He's already a degenerate.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#106. To: christine (#3)
Wow! Yeah, I know all males supposedly look at it, but it isn't healthy for anyone, male or female, to look at.
i agree with Paul on this one.
God is always good!
#107. To: PaulCJ (#13)
I agree, spying on your son is not a good idea.
To go behind someone's back is not moral. Such hypocrisy is the reason we have so many problems in the world.
God is always good!
#108. To: buckeroo (#18)
Deleting it would not stop it from being retrieved from a hard drive. It would have to be totally wiped several times, approx 7, before you can be safe that it can't be detected any longer. Also wiping your hard drive will not stop the government from knowing what you have downloaded or the sites you have visited unless you use a proxy the government is not spying on already.
Cleaning your own equipment cache or understanding how it exists is good stuff to know.
God is always good!
#109. To: Turtle (#28)
Actually it is the other way around. Those that look at porn often have a much higher chance of turning into serial killers than those that don't. Ask serial killers of women, most of them will admit porn started their decent into depravity.
Boys who aren't interested in porn turn into serial killers. Relax, he's totally normal.
God is always good!
#110. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#29)
I think you should go with his answer. If he is lying then there is not much you can do to stop him anyway. He can always go to a friends house and look at all the porn he wants to.
He says he isn't, and maybe he's not, but I would like to be sure.
God is always good!
#111. To: PaulCJ (#86)
This is correct. He finds out you are spying on him and it will make him lying about viewing porn seem minor by comparison. Take him at his word.
Without trust there cannot be family.
God is always good!
#112. To: RickyJ (#106)
see my #80
#113. To: RickyJ (#107)
His son. But anyway, I think it is a bad idea because it creates a emotional rift between parent and child.
I agree, spying on your son is not a good idea.
#114. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#105)
Careful there, I think that's where most of us started...oh well, never mind. Carry on as you were. >(;^{]
LOL! Ain't that the truth. If he's posting on LP or FR than I know it's a lost cause. He's already a degenerate.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#115. To: James Deffenbach (#114)
Yes but the LP of today is FARRRR from the LP of 2001 or even 2003, and the FR of 1998 shares absolutely no resemblance the the FR of today. Today both are filled with big government loving war mongers masquerading as conservatives.
Careful there, I think that's where most of us started...oh well, never mind. Carry on as you were. >(;^{]
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#116. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#115)
Yeah. I used to post on FR a LONG TIME AGO. And then on LP and some other boards after that. I think I started posting on the internet on FR back around 2000 and it just went to he!! after Robinscum banned me. The board never did recover. >(;^{] But seriously, getting banned from FR should be seen as a badge of honor and that's the way I took it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#117. To: All (#115)
As an example, look at the government sycophants on LP who swarm around resident government enforcer and outspoken jackboot Grand Isle. There was a time when he would have been despised and run off just for being a cop, ala _Jim (or was it Jackboot_Jim?). Now they embrace the statist dirtbag with open arms.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. - Benjamin Franklin
#118. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#117)
There's that one and, iirc, Rabid Puppy (Mad Dog) is a cop too. Most sites would have shown him to the door long ago.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#119. To: James_Deffenbach, christine, randge, noone222, Eric Stratton, Cynicom, Phant2000, Original_Intent (#116)
Well James, perhaps I owe some folks an apology for the blanket condemnation of having been LP members. I certainly would not have written that if I thought that it would have included you. Actually, I knew that chris was a member (a founding mother if memory serves) and she and others left or were set upon by unscrupulous and unprincipled power trippers after the metamorphosis to "an exclusive club of like minded persons" was complete. I should have been more specific and made it clear that those who later joined with the knowledge that the place was known for gang fanging non conforming posters deserve to be reminded if they later fell victim to that which they sustained when others were targeted. (We know who they are-they're trying to start a bully gang here) For the record, I didn't read any of the replies to my last post on the thread entitled, Hardly any one answers my posts any more. I could tell by the cluster of responses that I'd touched a nerve, and I enjoy it so much more when I ignore the pissed off people who angrily hammer out their frustration, (with some known exceptions of course-some who replied always offer well reasoned, rational and calm rebuttals) especially those who haven't a leg on which to perch. I think it's important that the midgets aren't permitted to turn this place into another site for gangs of bully boys like FR and TOS. If they cannot have fun unless they are ganging up then, too bad. They should either work on their communication skills and not rely on rat pack thuggery or get used to the blood pressure spikes when I periodically put them in short pants for their cowardice. Some may be ignorant and the cure for that is knowledge. But alas, some may be stupid and sadly, for that there is no cure.
Yeah. I used to post on FR a LONG TIME AGO. And then on LP and some other boards after that. I think I started posting on the internet on FR back around 2000 and it just went to he!! after Robinscum banned me. The board never did recover. >(;^{] But seriously, getting banned from FR should be seen as a badge of honor and that's the way I took it.
#120. To: HOUNDDAWG, James_Deffenbach, christine, randge, noone222, Eric Stratton, Cynicom, Phant2000, Original_Intent (#119)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#121. To: Eric Stratton, 4 (#120)
For more than a few of us, freedomunderground.com was our previous home.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.
#122. To: Lod (#121)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#123. To: Lod (#121)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#124. To: Eric Stratton (#123)
Christine left FU to start this site, and I chose to join. I have no clue as to what robin's site is called.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is missing its idiot.
#125. To: Lod (#124)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#126. To: Lod, Eric Stratton, HOUNDDAWG (#121)
It appears that you quirky guys are either 4 days late on your posts or almost a month early. Until your additions in this thread today, all of the postings here were on the 11th of October, November, and December. Just FYI.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#127. To: GreyLmist (#126)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#128. To: Eric Stratton (#120)
the FreedomUnderground after that...
But most came from FR via LP, at least in my estimation.
#129. To: Eric Stratton (#125)
This thread best gives the story of what happened to FU.
#130. To: christine (#129)
Is it the one about Bret?
#131. To: christine (#128)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#132. To: christine (#129)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#133. To: Eric Stratton (#132)
I guess I'm glad I didn't make the layover there [FU].
Brett is a good guy. That was a stupid comment by yourself.
"In a free society we're supposed to know the truth," ... "In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it" -- Ron Paul, circa 2010-12-02
#134. To: buckeroo (#133)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#135. To: buckeroo (#133)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Ben Franklin
#136. To: buckeroo (#133)
That gives me an idea. Israeli-Jews like to claim they made the desert bloom. Maybe they'd be interested in trying to make the whole continent of Antarctica bloom if that place was offered to them in exchange for their Middle East locale. Antarctica has more beachfront property and they'd just have some penguins, Chile, and Argentina as neighbors. Not much in the way of security worries for them in that land downunder so maybe they wouldn't ask America for so much money and weaponry. Plus it's much roomier there for them to build -- and cheaper, too, if they want to build igloos. Huge water resources with all that snow and ice and who knows but maybe even oil somewhere. They might want to swap if they give it some thought.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest