<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bear-ing Arms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 00:20:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9426</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 10:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9426</guid>
		<description>&lt;I&gt;Actually, whoever owns the computer you&#039;re using (in the private sector or in gummint) has every right to dictate how you use it. I&#039;d support that no matter what company, or who was in office. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and all of that.&lt;/I&gt;

Oh no doubt..

As I said, it&#039;s not the act of filtering that bothers me..

It&#039;s WHAT was chosen to be filtered..

And, despite your prostrations (is that the right word?  :D), I bet that if it got out that a GOP administration was filtering HuffPo, CW.COM, SG.COM etc etc etc, ya would have plenty to say about it.  :D

CWC,

&lt;I&gt;(I will say anything to distract people from the fact that I&#039;m silly, and there is no cure)&lt;/I&gt;

OK, now THAT, I got....  :D



Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Actually, whoever owns the computer you're using (in the private sector or in gummint) has every right to dictate how you use it. I'd support that no matter what company, or who was in office. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and all of that.</i></p>
<p>Oh no doubt..</p>
<p>As I said, it's not the act of filtering that bothers me..</p>
<p>It's WHAT was chosen to be filtered..</p>
<p>And, despite your prostrations (is that the right word?  :D), I bet that if it got out that a GOP administration was filtering HuffPo, CW.COM, SG.COM etc etc etc, ya would have plenty to say about it.  :D</p>
<p>CWC,</p>
<p><i>(I will say anything to distract people from the fact that I'm silly, and there is no cure)</i></p>
<p>OK, now THAT, I got....  :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CWCunningham</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9424</link>
		<dc:creator>CWCunningham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 08:14:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9424</guid>
		<description>A humorous line is not meant to be decrypted. At best, it is admired. At most, it is marvelled at.
At the very least, it is pondered.

And at the very worst, it&#039;s on sale now for just $7.42 ... BUT WAIT ... order now and you will receive, not one, but 108 lines guaranteed to be clever by clever people. ( you just pay extra shipping and handling )

(I will say anything to distract people from the fact that I&#039;m silly, and there is no cure)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A humorous line is not meant to be decrypted. At best, it is admired. At most, it is marvelled at.<br />
At the very least, it is pondered.</p>
<p>And at the very worst, it's on sale now for just $7.42 ... BUT WAIT ... order now and you will receive, not one, but 108 lines guaranteed to be clever by clever people. ( you just pay extra shipping and handling )</p>
<p>(I will say anything to distract people from the fact that I'm silly, and there is no cure)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9422</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 04:53:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9422</guid>
		<description>Michale [1] -

Heh.  That was funny!

M[2] -

Actually, whoever owns the computer you&#039;re using (in the private sector or in gummint) has every right to dictate how you use it.  I&#039;d support that no matter what company, or who was in office.  He who pays the piper calls the tune, and all of that.

CWCunningham -

Welcome back, once again!

But, um, your messages need a decrypting key... unless you&#039;re just tossing dice with the squirrels again...

Heh.

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michale [1] -</p>
<p>Heh.  That was funny!</p>
<p>M[2] -</p>
<p>Actually, whoever owns the computer you're using (in the private sector or in gummint) has every right to dictate how you use it.  I'd support that no matter what company, or who was in office.  He who pays the piper calls the tune, and all of that.</p>
<p>CWCunningham -</p>
<p>Welcome back, once again!</p>
<p>But, um, your messages need a decrypting key... unless you're just tossing dice with the squirrels again...</p>
<p>Heh.</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CWCunningham</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9409</link>
		<dc:creator>CWCunningham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9409</guid>
		<description>PLUS .... I just rolled a 6 which puts me on a roll.
I&#039;m unbeatable despite the terminal bruises.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PLUS .... I just rolled a 6 which puts me on a roll.<br />
I'm unbeatable despite the terminal bruises.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CWCunningham</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9408</link>
		<dc:creator>CWCunningham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9408</guid>
		<description>I will not, and I can not, and I did not (Did I? No you didn&#039;t).

That&#039;s 3 for 3, Try and beat it!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I will not, and I can not, and I did not (Did I? No you didn't).</p>
<p>That's 3 for 3, Try and beat it!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9403</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9403</guid>
		<description>Once again...

Vindication, thy name is Michale...  :D

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/sughed-tsa-backs-down-internet-site-policy/

:D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once again...</p>
<p>Vindication, thy name is Michale...  :D</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/sughed-tsa-backs-down-internet-site-policy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/sughed-tsa-backs-down-internet-site-policy/</a></p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9398</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9398</guid>
		<description>Since we seem to have a little playground here today, I thought I would throw something out for consideration..  :D

But first, I am ecstatic to see more of CWCunningham&#039;s cartoons again on CW.com!   They are always a welcome treat and have been sorely missed!!!  :D

Keep &#039;em coming, CWC!!!  :D

Now, moving on to a little segment I like to call, &quot;GET THAT??&quot;....

It&#039;s been reported that the TSA, under the auspices of Homeland Security, has issued a memo regarding &#039;Net filtering.  

Now, in and of itself, filtering of the &#039;Net is not a big deal..  All companies do it, all companies SHOULD do it and it makes me no never mind if a company, corporation or government agency wants to make sure it&#039;s employees are not wasting time on the &#039;Net.  Especially viewing porn ((cough))Obama&#039;s SEC((cough))((cough))..

However, the objectives of the filters themselves can be cause for concern..

The latest TSA memo has stated that on of the filters of &#039;Net access is &quot;controversial opinions&quot;....

GET THAT????.......

If you want to view a site that has &quot;controversial opinions&quot; on your lunch hour over at TSA, you will not be allowed to do so...   So, while it&#039;s likely you can read news and commentary from, say.... Huffingtonpost.com or ChrisWeigant.com or BobCesca.com, you CAN&#039;T read content from Foxnews.com or RushLimbaugh.com...  Granted, this is an assumption on my part, but it&#039;s a safe bet...

&quot;No big deal&quot;, ya&#039;all say???  Well, that&#039;s what many in the Left Wing Banter Blogosphere are saying anyways..  

&quot;Eh... No biggie...&quot;

Well, now...   Let&#039;s apply this to my world famous (and totally trademarked) Switcheroonie Test...

Let&#039;s postulate a scenario where it was learned that the Bush Administration&#039;s TSA was filtering &#039;Net Access based on &quot;Controversial Opinions...&quot;

In Bush&#039;s TSA world, one could access say... Foxnews.com and RushLimbaugh.com but cannot access Huffingtonpost.com or ChrisWeigant.com or BobCesca.com..

Now, I have to ask...

Would THAT be an &quot;Eh... No biggie&quot; then???

I don&#039;t think it would..

Just another instance of something that is good for the goose, SHOULD be good for the gander....  No??  


Michale......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since we seem to have a little playground here today, I thought I would throw something out for consideration..  :D</p>
<p>But first, I am ecstatic to see more of CWCunningham's cartoons again on CW.com!   They are always a welcome treat and have been sorely missed!!!  :D</p>
<p>Keep 'em coming, CWC!!!  :D</p>
<p>Now, moving on to a little segment I like to call, "GET THAT??"....</p>
<p>It's been reported that the TSA, under the auspices of Homeland Security, has issued a memo regarding 'Net filtering.  </p>
<p>Now, in and of itself, filtering of the 'Net is not a big deal..  All companies do it, all companies SHOULD do it and it makes me no never mind if a company, corporation or government agency wants to make sure it's employees are not wasting time on the 'Net.  Especially viewing porn ((cough))Obama's SEC((cough))((cough))..</p>
<p>However, the objectives of the filters themselves can be cause for concern..</p>
<p>The latest TSA memo has stated that on of the filters of 'Net access is "controversial opinions"....</p>
<p>GET THAT????.......</p>
<p>If you want to view a site that has "controversial opinions" on your lunch hour over at TSA, you will not be allowed to do so...   So, while it's likely you can read news and commentary from, say.... Huffingtonpost.com or ChrisWeigant.com or BobCesca.com, you CAN'T read content from Foxnews.com or RushLimbaugh.com...  Granted, this is an assumption on my part, but it's a safe bet...</p>
<p>"No big deal", ya'all say???  Well, that's what many in the Left Wing Banter Blogosphere are saying anyways..  </p>
<p>"Eh... No biggie..."</p>
<p>Well, now...   Let's apply this to my world famous (and totally trademarked) Switcheroonie Test...</p>
<p>Let's postulate a scenario where it was learned that the Bush Administration's TSA was filtering 'Net Access based on "Controversial Opinions..."</p>
<p>In Bush's TSA world, one could access say... Foxnews.com and RushLimbaugh.com but cannot access Huffingtonpost.com or ChrisWeigant.com or BobCesca.com..</p>
<p>Now, I have to ask...</p>
<p>Would THAT be an "Eh... No biggie" then???</p>
<p>I don't think it would..</p>
<p>Just another instance of something that is good for the goose, SHOULD be good for the gander....  No??  </p>
<p>Michale......</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/07/05/bear-ing-arms/#comment-9389</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=2349#comment-9389</guid>
		<description>Maybe those bears should head over to Asbury Park and fight for the right to bear chests..  :D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe those bears should head over to Asbury Park and fight for the right to bear chests..  :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
