Version: 2008

Comments on: White House opposition likely dooms anti-China Internet bill

The text of the letter that the U.S. Justice Department sent the sponsors of the Global Online Freedom Act is now available, and it shows why the bill probably can't be salvaged.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (8 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by wiredog May 30, 2008 12:09 PM PDT
The reply letter makes sense only if you place greenbacks above you and your nations values. It's this shift in priorities that places us in the tough situation we're currently in with China. They hold all the cards and we bend over backwards to appease them. Just my two cents.
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis May 31, 2008 3:01 AM PDT
Unfortunately, most people in this country DO put greenbacks above their 'morality' when it comes down to it. I wish that wasn't the case, and I wish it wasn't the case that people's morality can be swayed by money to be more...... stringent than it otherwise would be.
by Lerianis May 31, 2008 3:01 AM PDT
Unfortunately, most people in this country DO put greenbacks above their 'morality' when it comes down to it. I wish that wasn't the case, and I wish it wasn't the case that people's morality can be swayed by money to be more...... stringent than it otherwise would be.
by Kainchild May 30, 2008 2:40 PM PDT
Big business (who we elected into office time and time again) doesn't want to lose China and all that cheap labor, so they WILL bend over backwards for them. I wonder what is going to be the look on their faces when China starts buying out all of their companies. I guess as long as it doesn't effect the current person making the money, they don't care if the China ends up owning this country. Let's see if Jim Cramer over at CNBC has a crying session over THAT.
Reply to this comment
by Greenbeanx June 1, 2008 1:12 AM PDT
Seems like alot of people are anti-Chinese which is never good...We need the Chinese and the Chinese need us. We buy their products. Thats a fact of life. Welcome to gobalization people. People say we bend backwards to the Chinese but we also bend backwards to countries with OIL.
Reply to this comment
by fuzzyCWD June 1, 2008 8:05 PM PDT
interSTATE commerce is part of the job of OUR government, so why isn't interNATIONAL commerce part of the job of the UN?
Reply to this comment
by itchief June 2, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
The Administration is merely covering the corporate rears of many loyal campaign contributors. The UN doesn't regulate trade. Trade sanctions have always been a way the US attempts to modify behavior of a country it thinks is out of line. China is our friend. Without China there would be a shortage of lead in kids' toys and toxic pet food throughout America!
Reply to this comment
by wiredog June 2, 2008 10:59 AM PDT
I don't hate the Chinese, I'm pro American. What's wrong with wanting your country to be a world leader calling the shots and not taking them. I'm sure the Chinese feel the same way about their country and I don't blame them. I think it's healthy. I understand we do the same for countries with OIL and other commodities that are necessary for the success of our economy. All I'm asking is that our leaders ask themselves what is best for "all of America" before they pull the trigger on some of these policies that make us a quick dollar but sell us out in the long run.
Reply to this comment
(8 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Politics and Law

News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Politics and Law topics

advertisement
advertisement