Bill Gives President Emergency Control of Internet

If you say anything bad about socialized government health care, Obama will declare a cyber state of emergency, seize the Internet, and delete all material that is critical of his health care. :eek: :(
 
DaedalusHelios said:
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights. Republican media had their heads in the sand then right? lol

I hope you were joking.
Click to expand...
We know what happened, we lived through it. We also don't need media figure heads to tell us what to think. Somehow shifting the issue to the other side of the aisle acting like it cancels out the current situation isn't going to work. We're smarter than that.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights. Republican media had their heads in the sand then right? lol

I hope you were joking.
Click to expand...

Do you just convieniently glaze over the fact Obama signed it back into law????
 
DaedalusHelios said:
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights. Republican media had their heads in the sand then right? lol

I hope you were joking.
Click to expand...

I had no idea that republicans were the only people taking issue with this bill. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
If you think republicans believe in freedom you have never read the Patriot Acts 1 and 2. You lost more rights from those pieces of legislation than blacks gained from Civil Rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any rights I lost due to the patriot act. If you are, feel free to cite examples.
 
Xaero_toast said:
I'm not aware of any rights I lost due to the patriot act. If you are, feel free to cite examples.
Click to expand...

1. Right to a trial. US citizens can be sent to secret prisons indefinately if the various intelligence agencies says its for national security.
2. Free press lost due to media blackouts in the interest of national security.
3. All forms of privacy invasion are now authorized by the government. Previously you needed judges for warrants so there was some oversight.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. The Patriot acts are very "long winded" but a brief synopsis can be found on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
 
I think everyone has lost sight of the fact that republican and democrat might mean different views on the skin of things, but underneath both there are real scary "back-door" views. A party label means nothing to me. Let me see your record, hear your words (and even that needs to be backed up with actions).

Quit being partisan, and put them all under the same microscope when dealing with them. Our government already has enough finger-pointers to go around.

I agree with traditional constitutionalism. Lets keep out government the way it was meant to be......run by the people, not running the people.
 
3885395921_6444b36488.jpg
 
DaedalusHelios said:
1. Right to a trial. US citizens can be sent to secret prisons indefinately if the various intelligence agencies says its for national security.
2. Free press lost due to media blackouts in the interest of national security.
3. All forms of privacy invasion are now authorized by the government. Previously you needed judges for warrants so there was some oversight.

Thats just the tip of the iceberg. The Patriot acts are very "long winded" but a brief synopsis can be found on wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Click to expand...

In defense of the acts, Bush had to do something to calm the fears of the American public after 9/11. Have any of those three powers you listed ever actually been used and justified with the Patriot Acts?
 
To answer the question highlighted: Yes all three of them with the Bush administration. Obama's administration stopped the use of what I numbered as 1 and 2, but I am sure intelligence agencies still use what I numbered as 3 as often as they want. I am pretty sure they still abuse it to this day. It never should have passed but we had a majority republican House, Senate, and the president of course when it was signed into law.

The only reason it was passed is because they were capitalizing on fear. Bush and Cheney wanted more power. The war in Afghanistan was"something to calm the fears of the American public after 9/11". The Patriot Act was an excuse to make government overstretch its previous legal limitations and become more "nanny state" or "big brother".

He created the "department of homeland security" to capitalize on the "patriot acts". Its very expensive to create another intelligence agency. The other intelligence agencies were already doing their job just fine. If he hadn't cut the funding to intelligence agencies pre-9/11, its possible it wouldn't have even occurred. The main reason for 9/11 was a miscommunication between the intelligence agencies and the fact that they don't openly share information with each other. Otherwise it would have easily been stopped. BTW intelligence agencies have stopped many more terror plots from occurring than they share with the public. The only time that kind of information is paraded around is when a politician is trying to be divisive.
 
ummmm...

What we have going on under the new administration is the very definition of 'nanny state' and 'big brother'.

Everything's been expanded like 10 fold.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
ummmm...

What we have going on under the new administration is the very definition of 'nanny state' and 'big brother'.

Everything's been expanded like 10 fold.
Click to expand...

The whole world over in first world countries they are doing bailouts. It occurs in all economies close to the scale of the USA. It never should have got to the point it did with the financial sector. We trusted them and they screwed everything up by taking to many risks and hedging.

It needed more oversight and regulations to prevent them from getting to big to fall. Both sides fought regulation and let it build to the point they did. Republican politicians always said "regulation is bad". Many democratic politicians were also on the take with special interest groups too so they played along and it ended up looking more bipartisan despite it not being part of their official platform.

Obama did what any republican would have done (much like Bush at the end of his last term), in that he did bailouts because that is the only solution to the problem. Otherwise without padding the fall we would have had a stock market crash just like the great depression. Its not that Obama is some shining star. He simply did the only thing he could have done. It is not a long term solution at all. Its like HIV suppression drugs before we find the cure.... its expensive and nobody has a better solution so you just go with it until we find a way to really fix it.

Obama's views are very moderate regardless of how people try to smear his image. Far left doesn't like him because he is too right wing. Far right says he is too left wing. You might see the pattern if you watched the news of both MSNBC and Fox News and compare both sides rhetoric like I do.


The way I see politics:

Whenever you think of criticizing something, don't bother complaining unless you have a better solution. It keeps yourself from wasting your time and everyone else's.

If you have a solution, please present it and get other people's ideas on the subject. It helps to build your knowledge of the situation and other's knowledge too. ;)
 
^--Nice solution you're offering.. rofl. Hypocrisy.

My solution: Government can get the hell out of our lives like the founding fathers intended.
 
w1retap said:
^--Nice solution you're offering.. rofl. Hypocrisy.

My solution: Government can get the hell out of our lives like the founding fathers intended.
Click to expand...

Just insulting someone by saying "hypocrisy" is trolling. I will not respond with an insult back because I am above that BS. If you believe something to be different please elaborate if you are capable of doing so.

"Founding fathers intended" is always an interesting statement and usually comes from people that don't know much about them to be honest. Its like those people that say "Jesus hates fags!". Maybe if you cited a reference to something that the founding fathers said collectively that directly related to the things discussed recently in the thread your statement might carry more weight. "Otherwise its grasping at straws."
 
All the spin, bias, bullshit, opinions, beliefs, politics, religion and whatever else influences your daily lives and your thought process, I've only got one thing to say...

"Government is the solution to our problem. Government is our problem!"



Enough said...................................


Oh, and FUCK our Socialist President.... I really do hope the cretins who voted for this asshole are happy and proud of yourself... But in case you're not, don't worry, just give it time and we'll see what else this Communist shit-stain pulls out of his ass next.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
Just insulting someone by saying "hypocrisy" is trolling. I will not respond with an insult back because I am above that BS. If you believe something to be different please elaborate if you are capable of doing so.

"Founding fathers intended" is always an interesting statement and usually comes from people that don't know much about them to be honest. Its like those people that say "Jesus hates fags!". Maybe if you cited a reference to something that the founding fathers said collectively that directly related to the things discussed recently in the thread your statement might carry more weight. "Otherwise its grasping at straws."
Click to expand...
It was not an insult. You went through all the trouble to belittle everyone for not offering solutions, then you don't even offer one yourself.

My solution was simple. Get back to what the founding fathers intended for the country with their setting up of a limited government. If people don't know what that means, they should educate themselves. If they want to remain ignorant of what limited government means, they're a pathetic excuse of an American.
 
PanzerKrieg13 said:
All the spin, bias, bullshit, opinions, beliefs, politics, religion and whatever else influences your daily lives and your thought process, I've only got one thing to say...

"Government is the solution to our problem. Government is our problem!"



Enough said...................................


Oh, and FUCK our Socialist President.... I really do hope the cretins who voted for this asshole are happy and proud of yourself... But in case you're not, don't worry, just give it time and we'll see what else this Communist shit-stain pulls out of his ass next.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that you believe this wouldn't have happened if was John Mccain in office. It would have happened(probably faster) then too, but he'd be outside the white house walking around in his underwear delusional.

Just insulting someone by saying "hypocrisy" is trolling. I will not respond with an insult back because I am above that BS. If you believe something to be different please elaborate if you are capable of doing so.
Click to expand...

It's because wiretap is a troll. He lives under a bridge by a nuclear power plant.


ummmm...

What we have going on under the new administration is the very definition of 'nanny state' and 'big brother'.

Everything's been expanded like 10 fold.
Click to expand...

How does expansion equal new?

In defense of the acts, Bush had to do something to calm the fears of the American public after 9/11. Have any of those three powers you listed ever actually been used and justified with the Patriot Acts?
Click to expand...

HAHA, Funny. That's what it's for , yeah. Not like it was allowed to happen. Not like the Taliban were on our payroll before(therefor, on our radar).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/index.htm

I'm not aware of any rights I lost due to the patriot act. If you are, feel free to cite examples.
Click to expand...

So that means it must not have happened. Night, Night


Do you just convieniently glaze over the fact Obama signed it back into law????
Click to expand...

This proves the (any)President is not the actual leader of the country. He's a puppet, whoever pulls his strings runs the country(corporations, bankers, elitists).
 
Go ahead and make an argument against the Constitution. Are you one like BHO that believes it is a roadblock?
 
w1retap said:
Go ahead and make an argument against the Constitution. Are you one like BHO that believes it is a roadblock?
Click to expand...

rofl argument against constitution? Who said that? You need to cite examples rather than throwing around documents without excerpts to indicate what you are applying it to.

Baiting me with BHO eats babies so do you to? LOL
 
DaedalusHelios said:
rofl argument against constitution? Who said that? You need to cite examples rather than throwing around documents without excerpts to indicate what you are applying it to.

Baiting me with BHO eats babies so do you to? LOL
Click to expand...
- The document goes through line by line and outlines limited government.
- I was only quoting BHO, not saying he eats babies.
 
PanzerKrieg13 said:
I've only got one thing to say:
"Government is NOT the solution to our problem. Government is our problem!"

Enough said...................................
Oh, and #$*% our Socialist President.... I really do hope the cretins who voted for this a**hole are happy and proud of yourself....
Click to expand...
Very True.........and I warned people before hand that voting for change was the wrong thing to do (simply for the fact that you might not get the change you want). You need to vote on the issues.

w1retap said:
Oh yeah, here's my reference. The greatest document ever crafted which lays out everything section by section.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
Click to expand...

THIS^^^

NewYork said:
This proves the (any)President is not the actual leader of the country. He's a puppet, whoever pulls his strings runs the country(corporations, bankers, elitists).
Click to expand...

This is it in a nutshell.
 
I just find it strange you say Obama believes the constitution is a roadblock without even giving an example how his policy directly contradicts any of the statements written in the document. I want to understand your reasoning but without direct proof it appears to be emotional rather than logical. Basically whats the rationale behind that belief?
 
DaedalusHelios said:
I just find it strange you say Obama believes the constitution is a roadblock without even giving an example how his policy directly contradicts any of the statements written in the document. I want to understand your reasoning but without direct proof it appears to be emotional rather than logical. Basically whats the rationale behind that belief?
Click to expand...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
 
w1retap said:
- The document goes through line by line and outlines limited government.
Click to expand...

Would you like to see a permanent cap on spending until the national deficit is payed off?

Both parties are "Big Government". Look at military/defense spending. I guess you don't like either party? I am a little sick of the fear mongering and empty campaign promises of both sides.
They are both controlled by special interest groups and PACs I will admit. I have seen it first hand as I have worked for PAC's and campaigns before.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
Would you like to see a permanent cap on spending until the national deficit is payed off?

Both parties are "Big Government". Look at military/defense spending. I guess you don't like either party? I am a little sick of the fear mongering and empty campaign promises of both sides.
They are both controlled by special interest groups and PACs I will admit. I have seen it first hand as I have worked for PAC's and campaigns before.
Click to expand...
No, I don't like either party. They've both contributed to ruining the country. I've expressed that quite strongly in various threads. People aren't just black and white.. there's different beliefs people can hold.

But yes, I'd like to see the government stop spending trillions of dollars. Currently they're lining up trillions more in spending. In reality, it's too late already. We are in over our heads. Our debts are greater than the world's GDP. The derivatives market debt alone is many fold greater..
 
w1retap said:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4
Click to expand...

Youtube really isn't much of a source... a written transcript from the campaign trail or press conferences covered by AP or Reuters would suffice. Or even any place that is required to have standards on what it publishes. I am not saying its fabricated but misquoting statements made by politicians can yield certain results for smear campaigns. Even home cooked ones on Youtube.
 
The bill has been revised to not even mention the Internet. It also has scholarships and rewards for students who decide to work in cyber-security. The final bill will not have the language you all are having an ulcer over.

And if you still have a problem with it you need to direct your anger at the Senators who wrote it, Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller, not President Obama.
 
w1retap said:
No, I don't like either party. They've both contributed to ruining the country. I've expressed that quite strongly in various threads. People aren't just black and white.. there's different beliefs people can hold.

But yes, I'd like to see the government stop spending trillions of dollars. Currently they're lining up trillions more in spending. In reality, it's too late already. We are in over our heads. Our debts are greater than the world's GDP. The derivatives market debt alone is many fold greater..
Click to expand...

Well theoritically since the banking system can actually make money out of thin air(literally), you could just allow it to keep less on hand as a percentage for all banks for lending and suddenly things would be fixed if people had the means to pay it back at more than the "on hand" rate since its mainly electronic money anyway. Its just really risky because if that causes consumer confidence to fall we could see the whole financial system collapse and we would be doing barter again maybe. :eek:

Its a huge mess and I am not saying it will be fixed anytime soon, but I am glad people are trying to fix it even if it doesn't work.
 
DH - you are very good at explaining how everybody here is so wrong and lacking reason. If you actually spent some time researching actual historical FACT and not blog BS, you might be able to defend some of your positions.

The problem is Obama is a fantastic motivator, he is not a leader. He has left every decision up to congress and his advisers. He speaks frequently to the public but only defends what congress has presented. So nobody knows what the fuck is going on.

Then when people in the WH put on the WH.gov website "send us fishy statements by your fellow Americans" it creates the feeling that the government is going to hold dissenting opinions against those people. This would be fascism and is against the law and against the first amendment. Then when Americans are belittled, regardless of political affiliation, by Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs, it shows a total disconnect with the American people.

Our system is the BEST in the world by far. However, messed up it is right now and reforms are definitely needed. But just because change is needed does not make all change better especially when it contradicts the constitution or puts the country in bankruptcy. Realize that the USA has the longest standing stable and free democracy in the world by far.

Right now, Obama needs to learn to lead and remember what office he holds and the importance of that. Not let some wacko make a commercial directed to kids with famous people saying how they pledge themselves to Barack Obama, that smacks of dictatorship. Americans do NOT pledge themselves to any politician. Americans pledge themselves to the Constitution of the United States.

Obama is the president now, so don't justify your misguided opinions by saying Bush did it first. That is not a valid justification to why Obama wants emergency control over the internet or any other of his policies. And sorry to disappoint you but there is no conspiracy of rich corporate people against the little guy so they can get richer.

BTW, one last question. Do you want to see America fail or succeed?
 
DaedalusHelios said:
Youtube really isn't much of a source... a written transcript from the campaign trail or press conferences covered by AP or Reuters would suffice. Or even any place that is required to have standards on what it publishes. I am not saying its fabricated but misquoting statements made by politicians can yield certain results for smear campaigns. Even home cooked ones on Youtube.
Click to expand...
yeah, the man's own words aren't good enough. The excerpt..
BHO said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. [...]

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Click to expand...

DaedalusHelios said:
Well theoritically since the banking system can actually make money out of thin air(literally), you could just allow it to keep less on hand as a percentage for all banks for lending and suddenly things would be fixed if people had the means to pay it back at more than the "on hand" rate since its mainly electronic money anyway. Its just really risky because if that causes consumer confidence to fall we could see the whole financial system collapse and we would be doing barter again maybe. :eek:

Its a huge mess and I am not saying it will be fixed anytime soon, but I am glad people are trying to fix it even if it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
It's a fraction reserve banking system. It's a good system, but it creates massive potential debts. The real problems are the legislation that actually force banks to hand out loans to anyone with a heartbeat. Things like equal credit lending and community reinvestment legislation were major contributing factors.
 
Caniba,

I feel like I am Truman talking to Joseph McCarthy right now. Of course I want america to succeed, I wouldn't be here otherwise. Now who is misguided Caniba? It saddens me to think you will never really come to realize that what you said is rather ironic.

I must go now and stimulate the economy by getting my breakfast on the way to work. :)
 
Originally Posted by w1retap
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. [...]

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.
Click to expand...

That does not sound bad to me. From that exerpt I would say he has a different interpretation of the constitution than probably you, but different doesn't mean he lusts to burn the thing. He has a background in studying law so its only natural to pick a school of thought within it.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
Caniba,

I feel like I am Truman talking to Joseph McCarthy right now. Of course I want america to succeed, I wouldn't be here otherwise. Now who is misguided Caniba? It saddens me to think you will never really come to realize that what you said is rather ironic.

I must go now and stimulate the economy by getting my breakfast on the way to work. :)
Click to expand...

That was my point. Sorry for going over your head.;)
 
DaedalusHelios said:
That does not sound bad to me. From that exerpt I would say he has a different interpretation of the constitution than probably you, but different doesn't mean he lusts to burn the thing. He has a background in studying law so its only natural to pick a school of thought within it.
Click to expand...
I really hope you're joking. He's saying that we need to override what the founding fathers laid out in the Constitution in order to achieve social redistributive change.. But I'm guessing you're some form of a collectivist and that's why you agree.
 
w1retap said:
I really hope you're joking. He's saying that we need to override what the founding fathers laid out in the Constitution in order to achieve social redistributive change.. But I'm guessing you're some form of a collectivist and that's why you agree.
Click to expand...

I think he is interpreting it to not cover those topics completely. Therefore he wants to fill in the gap with his opinion of whats right for the people if the opportunity presents itself. Which I am sure it won't even if he wanted to right now because thats against both side's corporate interests. He is on a short leash as it is with anti-public healthcare running the spin machine currently.
 
DaedalusHelios said:
I think he is interpreting it to not cover those topics completely. Therefore he wants to fill in the gap with his opinion of whats right for the people if the opportunity presents itself. Which I am sure it won't even if he wanted to right now because thats against both side's corporate interests. He is on a short leash as it is with anti-public healthcare running the spin machine currently.
Click to expand...
The problem is that he's made it very clear where he stands. His rallies show it, his speeches show it, his advisers sounding him show it, his legislation he signed shows it, his past positions and voting record shows it, his future aspirations show it, and his spending shows it. I could literally waste my entire week copying and pasting links/transcripts/videos/audio that enforce precisely what I'm saying. Can you refute any of the vague remarks you make that make the point "he doesn't really mean that"?
 
DaedalusHelios said:
So you like McCarthy and those kinds of political tactics he popularized?
Click to expand...

McCarthy, was a paranoid freak. Will you please look into the people around Obama and draw your own conclusions. Question everything, don't be a sheep.

DaedalusHelios said:
BTW Its not going over someone's head if they call you on it. Its called under the rug.
Click to expand...

BTW, you still don't get it.
 
DaedalusHelios, I am having a great time reading all your posts. But I can't help but notice, where are all your supporters? Are you the only one that thinks what Obama is doing will in anyway help the country.

Come on Obama supporters, where did you all go. Help a guy out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top