• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Military Blocks Web Access to Southern Baptist Convention.....

mak2 said:
I am going to stick my neck out here and say this is another Fauxrage. I bet a coumputer went down or something. Govt computers block from all kidna sites. I cant even look up nutritional information for beer on mine.
Click to expand...

Word. Military computers are just that: Military computers. Government use only. If a service member wants to dick around on the internet, they can do it on their own time, on their own device. In all honesty, I think all military computers should have extreme limitations placed on them for the purpose of OPSEC.
 
mak2 said:
Stop it. Faux has an outrage a day to keep you guys fired up and not thinking. I cant answer for the left but in my opinion Faux is silly and you guys fall for it time after time. I dont know what your rant and outrage was all about, but yea, Fox sucks, and you guys believe it. I seriously doubt the military is picking on the baptist. This stupid **** aint even an issue. Yea, I think you got it.
Click to expand...

That's good to know.....despite the other religious groups that all had the same thought and the Family Research Center. That you would put the outrage upon Fox for Reporting it. I guess if we waited for some Liberal source it wouldn't have been reported on. Like Benghazi. They probably would have just reported on another shooting in Chicago.....huh?

But your Boy Chrissy the Pissy Mathews don't ever start any outrage whatsoever. Nah.....not at all. Right? Rachael Maddow, Ed Schultz. Right?

Same deal with HUffPO and Ariannna, or Katrina van Dan Huesal.....huh. How bout some of those at ABC, CNN. OH and Lets not forget Good Ole NBC who Damn near owns all of the DNC.

Yeah I get tired of the cries and whines about one new station that gets out done by 4 others and all their BS too.
 
Jerry said:
This is nothing. The military blocked porn from all bases overseas.
Click to expand...
Irony-GO1 states you can get busted for unauthorized posession of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition while in the ME...yet in Kuwait they are broadcasting porn on 3 channels on their basic cable package.
 
The point is, as a former military member, I know that going to a religious website isn't routine, and if it is deemed "hostile content" then there is less of a reason for the member to go there. if they still decide they want to visit that site, they can do it elsewhere. All Southern Baptist sites aren't block, so no ones religious beliefs are being infringed on, so I don't see the controversy here.

VanceMack said:
Is that really relevant to the point? First it was he shouldnt be going there on a gov computer, then it shouldnt matter because he or she should have other ways....all the while...nothing about the stupidity of blocking a site for 'hostile content' which is what the thread is about.
Click to expand...
 
yea, its not a story no matter who reports it.
MMC said:
That's good to know.....despite the other religious groups that all had the same thought and the Family Research Center. That you would put the outrage upon Fox for Reporting it. I guess if we waited for some Liberal source it wouldn't have been reported on. Like Benghazi. They probably would have just reported on another shooting in Chicago.....huh?

But your Boy Chrissy the Pissy Mathews don't ever start any outrage whatsoever. Nah.....not at all. Right? Rachael Maddow, Ed Schultz. Right?

Same deal with HUffPO and Ariannna, or Katrina van Dan Huesal.....huh. How bout some of those at ABC, CNN. OH and Lets not forget Good Ole NBC who Damn near owns all of the DNC.

Yeah I get tired of the cries and whines about one new station that gets out done by 4 others and all their BS too.
Click to expand...
 
MMC said:
First the issue with the Catholics.....now this. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

More and more like Communist China every day.
 
not sure why this matters one bit.

my work blocks sites and unblock sites all the time, their computers and if if you are using their own its there internet connection.

What is the issue, what am i missing?
 
rocket88 said:
When you're in the military, you sign up for some of your freedoms to be limited. It's actually pretty common for employers to do that. Mine, for example, blocks anything about alcohol or tobacco. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So, you're telling me that when a soldier goes to post library, his web access is going to be limited?
 
apdst said:
The commander in chief is a commie, so what do you expect?
Click to expand...

The Commander in Chief, like the one before him, is a fascist; and this is what I expect.
 
Ikari said:
The Commander in Chief, like the one before him, is a fascist; and this is what I expect.
Click to expand...

Not a dime's worth of difference between a facist and a communist.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
What does the military personnel need to access on the SBC website with military computers? Does this affect their ability to do their job? If not, they don't need access to the website.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Chaplains do. Southern Baptist are the largest protestant group in the country and therefore have a very large number of Chaplains. Keeping up with what is going on with the religion they represent is indeed part of their job.
 
AGENT J said:
not sure why this matters one bit.

my work blocks sites and unblock sites all the time, their computers and if if you are using their own its there internet connection.

What is the issue, what am i missing?
Click to expand...

What you are missing is the Liberals/Left's systematic attack upon religion, primarily Christians. While this incident may or may not have been accidental, many will believe it to be intentional simply because of the continued efforts of the left to suppress Christian religions.

While those who are at their home base do, usually, have other options for accessing sites, those at deployed locations do not. While you may not have a problem with Christianity being suppressed, many do. Comparing the Military to a Corporation is not very accurate, how many companies sent their employees to remote locations where they will likely come under fire from an enemy corporation? Maybe not to you, to many, when they are in a situation where death is a constant threat, their religion becomes very important to them.
 
It was accidnetal, it is not a news story, it is a fauxrage.
DVSentinel said:
What you are missing is the Liberals/Left's systematic attack upon religion, primarily Christians. While this incident may or may not have been accidental, many will believe it to be intentional simply because of the continued efforts of the left to suppress Christian religions.

While those who are at their home base do, usually, have other options for accessing sites, those at deployed locations do not. While you may not have a problem with Christianity being suppressed, many do. Comparing the Military to a Corporation is not very accurate, how many companies sent their employees to remote locations where they will likely come under fire from an enemy corporation? Maybe not to you, to many, when they are in a situation where death is a constant threat, their religion becomes very important to them.
Click to expand...
 
Chaddelamancha said:
They should be using personal computer when they are off duty.
Click to expand...

Use of the NIPRNET when off duty is a morale issue for many. First, do you think internet is as cheap in most countries as it is in the US? It most definitely is not. It can take a significant chunk out of a junior enlisted person's income. Second, many sites are blocked by the host country for political reasons. When I was stationed in Libya the only time I could access things like Youtube, Facebook, or many news sites was from the embassy's NIPRNET. Third, if the service member is going to be doing online banking or some online shopping they are often encouraged to do it from the NIPRNET as their personal information will be much safer than over some countries' ISPs.

It is a "perk". The military sends overseas away from many of the comforts of home. So they do little things to help with morale, such as provide IVG lines for cheaper phone calls to the States, an APO which allows you to send and receive mail overseas at domestic rates, and limited use of NIPRNET during off hours. And much of the time the NIPRNET that is being used is at the on base library.

It is a worthwhile benefit.
 
mak2 said:
It was accidnetal, it is not a news story, it is a fauxrage.
Click to expand...

So you have said. But you will have to forgive myself and others if we do not always believe things that come from Obama or Obama related agencies. Trust is earned, and the Obama camp, imo, has done little, if anything, to actually earn any trust.
 
If trust is earned, why do you trust Fox. They do these outrage things time after time, day after day.
DVSentinel said:
So you have said. But you will have to forgive myself and others if we do not always believe things that come from Obama or Obama related agencies. Trust is earned, and the Obama camp, imo, has done little, if anything, to actually earn any trust.
Click to expand...
 
DVSentinel said:
So you have said. But you will have to forgive myself and others if we do not always believe things that come from Obama or Obama related agencies. Trust is earned, and the Obama camp, imo, has done little, if anything, to actually earn any trust.
Click to expand...

Where have you worked that blocking of websites is done on an individual hand-picked basis rather than by filtering software? Do you really think it more likely that for whatever reason some people in some places decided to specifically block the SBC website rather than the website innocently triggering a filter? Add in that apparently not all DoD computers blocked it which makes more sense: an administration directive (that no one can identify) that is randomly carried out, or differing sensitivity levels/programs at different locations? On govt computers I've seen cases where a website is blocked one morning but not in the afternoon and vice-versa.
 
mak2 said:
If trust is earned, why do you trust Fox. They do these outrage things time after time, day after day.
Click to expand...

Where did I say I trust Fox News? Do I read some of their articles, sure, they often carry news that others like CNN don't. Do I read their commentaries, opinions, etc? No. No news agency is without bias and none tell all the news. As far as broadcast news, I only occasionally watch local. I have an antenna, no cable, no satellite, so other than the channels that carry a national news program, I don't even have the option of watching Fox News, or CNN, etc.

What is your source for "knowing" it was not intentional? Are they sourcing officials from the agency accused of wrongdoing? I don't need others to interpret for me, I concentrate only on the facts given. So far, I have not seen what I would call a reliable source contradicting it being intentional, but I also have seen no absolute proof saying it was. Therefore, at this point, I do not know if it was intentional or not.
 
Sarcogito said:
Use of the NIPRNET when off duty is a morale issue for many. First, do you think internet is as cheap in most countries as it is in the US? It most definitely is not. It can take a significant chunk out of a junior enlisted person's income. Second, many sites are blocked by the host country for political reasons. When I was stationed in Libya the only time I could access things like Youtube, Facebook, or many news sites was from the embassy's NIPRNET. Third, if the service member is going to be doing online banking or some online shopping they are often encouraged to do it from the NIPRNET as their personal information will be much safer than over some countries' ISPs.

It is a "perk". The military sends overseas away from many of the comforts of home. So they do little things to help with morale, such as provide IVG lines for cheaper phone calls to the States, an APO which allows you to send and receive mail overseas at domestic rates, and limited use of NIPRNET during off hours. And much of the time the NIPRNET that is being used is at the on base library.

It is a worthwhile benefit.
Click to expand...

But at the taxpayers expense.
 
I am sorry. I am not focused today and am not keeping my discussions straight, this the the second or third time I have done that. This story was town hall I think, I was thinking there is always an outrage on the RW blogoshpere. But I think I will read till I drink another cup of coffee and focus.
DVSentinel said:
Where did I say I trust Fox News? Do I read some of their articles, sure, they often carry news that others like CNN don't. Do I read their commentaries, opinions, etc? No. No news agency is without bias and none tell all the news. As far as broadcast news, I only occasionally watch local. I have an antenna, no cable, no satellite, so other than the channels that carry a national news program, I don't even have the option of watching Fox News, or CNN, etc.

What is your source for "knowing" it was not intentional? Are they sourcing officials from the agency accused of wrongdoing? I don't need others to interpret for me, I concentrate only on the facts given. So far, I have not seen what I would call a reliable source contradicting it being intentional, but I also have seen no absolute proof saying it was. Therefore, at this point, I do not know if it was intentional or not.
Click to expand...
 
Manc Skipper said:
But at the taxpayers expense.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with anything? Or, is this some kind of incredibly lame argument about the seperation of church and state?
 
DVSentinel said:
I don't need others to interpret for me, I concentrate only on the facts given. So far, I have not seen what I would call a reliable source contradicting it being intentional, but I also have seen no absolute proof saying it was. Therefore, at this point, I do not know if it was intentional or not.
Click to expand...

But do you think the two possibilities are equally likely? Applying Occam's Razor, a fault/glitch/setting of the filter is a simpler explanation than deliberate malice, which would require either multiple people individually targetting the SBC website or a general directive (not known to exist) that was ignored in some places and carried out in other.

The conspiracy explanation requires a lot more explanation. Not passing the filter makes more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom