Bill Gives President Emergency Control of Internet

DaedalusHelios said:
That does not sound bad to me.
Click to expand...

Huh?:confused:

Let's see.....he jumped right into socialism with the "redistribution of wealth, and economic justice in society". How about - "bringing about major redistributive change"?


Looks at the constitution as a restrictive document....as negative "can't-do" policies.

And the general feeling I get from Obama is seeing as some things aren't specifically laid out in the constitution as "you can't go there" items, it means he can........just because it doesn't say he can't.
 
caniba said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have better things to do than scream at brick walls.
 
NewYork said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're a fucking moron that needs to go back to school and learn to read. I never once said anything about John McCain or anybody else but Communist Obama. In fact, I don't give a shit about either of them. I've been able to vote for years now, in at least two presidential elections, I've yet to cast my vote for a single person. I dislike the entire idea of a having a president in the 21st century and I've yet to see a bag of shit worth voting for step-up to the plate.

Say what you will about me not voting, I'm sure some jerk off will have his opinion but I simply don't see a reason to vote for someone I know will fuck things up. George Bush did and now it's Socialist Obama's turn. It's merely a matter of which shit bag will do the least damage. I don't follow political trends nor political parties, so until I see a presidential candidate that is not a tool, I won't vote for him. Including Bush, Kerry, Obama or McCain.

(Note; About the only thing positive for McCain I can conjure up is the fact he was former military and held in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam, more than I can say for Obama, Bush, or any other tool that's tried to be president in the last decade plus. Yes, I know Kerry won a purple heart(s), I don't really care...)

Goodnight and Fuck you America. If you want to destroy yourselves, you deserve nothing more. I'm done with patriotism, I'm done trying to fight for your freedom. I'm simply trying not to be dragged down with you too far. But we all get what we deserve in the end.
 
Lets see what's wrong with Obama...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s Like the SS? Nationalist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o Spread the wealth, so Socialist now.

Perhaps it's the fact that he gave power to these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wh6AWCJdxg Van Jones 'Green Jobs Czar'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk Rahm Emanuel talking about how to exploit a crisis.

By the way I'm a Conservative. I don't like the Republican or Democrat parties. Here's a good example of why.
"If it's health care he wants, push everything else to the side. Then we can move on financial regulation. Then we can move on climate change," said Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander , R- Tenn. By pushing so many agenda items, "We're scaring the country half to death for fear of too many Washington takeovers and too much debt." http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_polls_healthcare/2009/09/02/255698.html

The Republican senator doesn't seem to have a problem with government power grabs as long as they're not so obvious.
 
I read this joke on another forum and thought it'd be somewhat appropriate here. Classic. :D

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact
that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government
fees will increase in a BIG way.. To compensate for these increases, our
prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot
increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy,
we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really
been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know
how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found
sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided
these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair
way to approach this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
 
Oh I forgot to add that that's just when they let their guards down on camera. Pretty scary when you think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
 
beowulf7 said:
I read this joke on another forum and thought it'd be somewhat appropriate here. Classic. :D

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact
that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government
fees will increase in a BIG way.. To compensate for these increases, our
prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot
increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy,
we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really
been bothering me, since I believe we are family here and I didn't know
how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found
sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided
these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair
way to approach this problem. They voted for change, I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
Click to expand...
ROFL!:D
 
beowulf7 said:
^ PanzerKrieg13, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
Click to expand...

I do apologise. I don't mean to become vulgar or rude. I simply can't tolerate stupid people. And I don't like watching my country get taken over by a group of leftist radicals and then pretend to stay calm about it. It makes me angry, very fucking angry.

But what makes me even more angry is how people can justify their actions and how the majority of them are doing it for no other reason than political trends/parties. That is the worst part.

That's why I have given up fighting for this country. That is why I left the military. That is why I don't give a fuck about patriotism. This country is going to shit and so few seem to want to change that. In fact, more people just seem to be encouraging it and assistant with its destruction. I really have no idea what it will take for people to simply wake the fuck up but I'm afraid it's close to being too late.

That is why I say fuck Obama and fuck this country. If the people who voted for this dumb-shit and the corrupt radical government of this country want to become the next U.S.S.R. or some other third-world shit hole I can't help but not get angry...

Enough said.
 
There really isn't a multi party system anymore...all the politicall parties out there want controll over what we do. After Regan the republicans totally lost their way and failed to keep on their beliefs. Now they think that if they can out democrat the Democratic party, they'll win. Unfortunately for them all it does is fragment their votes to other 3rd parties
 
Shane_c82 said:
Sigh...the fact I have to explain leaves me two explanations:

1. You are blind and unable to read and by chance you quoted me and hit the correct keys for the text you wrote.
2. You agree with him and I will leave you with this.
Click to expand...

So you can't say anything why Obama's socialism working with a team of people looking for control of our lives and how that is good for the USA.

This is not about political parties. It is about control versus freedom. I suppose you think Pelosi tells the truth and is good for the country also. Have you not seen aby of the speeches given by Pelosi, or any of Obama's top adviser's.

Pay attention to the writing on the wall. And please explain on why you think what they are doing is not about control and is good for America in anyway.

"It is like talking to a brick wall" - You sound like an uniformed drone. If you really believe in Obama'a policies, explain, enlighten us, maybe you will point out something that we haven't seen.
 
“To know where I stand, look at my advisers” - Barack Obama
 
PanzerKrieg13 said:
I do apologise. I don't mean to become vulgar or rude. I simply can't tolerate stupid people. And I don't like watching my country get taken over by a group of leftist radicals and then pretend to stay calm about it. It makes me angry, very fucking angry.

But what makes me even more angry is how people can justify their actions and how the majority of them are doing it for no other reason than political trends/parties. That is the worst part.

That's why I have given up fighting for this country. That is why I left the military. That is why I don't give a fuck about patriotism. This country is going to shit and so few seem to want to change that. In fact, more people just seem to be encouraging it and assistant with its destruction. I really have no idea what it will take for people to simply wake the fuck up but I'm afraid it's close to being too late.

That is why I say fuck Obama and fuck this country. If the people who voted for this dumb-shit and the corrupt radical government of this country want to become the next U.S.S.R. or some other third-world shit hole I can't help but not get angry...

Enough said.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I am confused. What has Obama done that will transform the states into a third world country? other then universal healthcare (which is totally going to destroy the country). correct me if I am wrong, but does this new internet control bill strip away anything more then the patriot act already does?

I know you are going to point out that the democrats renewed it, but that is not the point I am trying to make. the point is that other then healthcare, I can't really see any differences in practice between your two parties. (correct me if I am wrong, I don't pay too much attention to U.S. politics)

They both seem pretty central, perhaps even verging on the right wing (similar to the liberals and conservatives in Canada). So I don't really see how you can classify the democrats as "a group of leftist radicals".

Also I don't think that last sentence makes sense, yours that is. I think it is a double negative, in that you "can't help" but "not" be angry. actually I am even more confused right now, because I noticed the but in there. I am going to be very puzzled now.
 
Saw this the other day... nearly shit my pants. No reason the president should ever have control. someone is on a power trip for sure..
 
The patriot act is dangerous in the wrong hands, but Clinton had the internet monitored when he was in office. If it's a real national emergency wouldn't you want the citizens to be informed, instead of in a panic & jumping to conclusions? Besides in a real national emergency I'm sure the government could shut down whatever it really needed to, ie. air traffic on 9/11. This is just about control of the opposition. Just sit on your couch, watch our news media (propaganda) tell you what, & go to work so they can pick your back pockets with taxes. How dare you oppose their ideas. Don't you know they know what's best for you? Vote these power hungry sobs out of office. Vote the incumbents out, so they can join the 1 to 2 out of 10 people on the corner who are also unemployed.
 
caniba said:
Read this article from the UK. I don't know what its political agenda is, but it describes the risks of out of control government spending.
Click to expand...

I can't find any study linked, but the article, and the pamphlet that was released is just that, a pamphlet in support of unconstrained marketplace, deregulation, and lowered minimum wage. Personally I believe in Keynesian economics, and the need to prop up industry during downturns to prevent deepening recession. I will gladly acknowledge the flaw in Keynesian economics, in that rather then spend money as it comes, people will attempt horde it and pay off debts, but I still see it as a necessary step in recovery. One problem I see with the pamphlet is that it does not provide anything, other then interest rate control (which is important), to speed the way to recovery. I can't support businesses being even less well regulated as is suggested, given that ideas such as this led to problems in the first place. I am willing to be swayed from my stance, but first I need to be presented with some proof that deficit financing like in the 1930s didn't work.
 
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...

The problem is you operate under the mistaken impression that there's only one interpretation of things in the constitution. The guys who signed the paper couldn't agree on what it meant when the ink was barely dry.

Conservatives in this country often claim that we were founded as a Christian nation, even though neither God, nor Jesus, make an appearance (though there was something like a dozen attempts to put the word God into the Constitution.

Hell, if it was really as cut and dry as conservatives seem to think, then why do we need a SCOTUS? Why have decisions been made and overturned time and again? Because it' ain't as simple as some claim. If you think it is, then by all means, go write the constitution out in symbolic logic and report back to us in 30 or 40 years when you're done.

At one time, the SCOTUS ruled that "Separate, but Equal" was constitutional. Later, it ruled that Separate is inherently unequal.

How should that be handled? Do you believe that the way it should work is that the court makes no decision unless the founding fathers specifically mentioned it? IOW, when it comes to wiretapping, the technology didn't exist, so they shouldn't make a decision at all.

Alternatively, do you think that the SCOTUS can decide, but whatever they decide is the way things stand forever, or until the constitution is amended to alter the original decision of the court?

Gun rights advocates beleive that the constitution guarantees citizens the right to carry any weapon they choose anywhere they like....yet even in the 1800's, some towns made you give up your guns either when you entered. The other extreme believes that the constitution is referring to the military and thus

The first amendment seems pretty straight forward, and yet there are all kinds of exceptions that the court has interpreted as constitutional over the last 230+ years. Thus, you can't scream fire in a theater. Freedom of the press is guaranteed, most of the time. The press has the right to protect their sources....most of the time.
At one time, it was OK to ban books (and some places still try to ban books).

Saying you believe in the constitution is a meaningless statement, because constitutional scholars can't agree on what is and is not constitutional, and you and I are not a Constitutional scholars.
 
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...

It was out of context, and I believe that it actually took cut out parts of the quote to change the context. It's also worth noting that the audio was filtered to make it sound like that was picked up by a mike from a distance.

Here's the original unedited quote
 
nilepez said:
The problem is you operate under the mistaken impression that there's only one interpretation of things in the constitution. The guys who signed the paper couldn't agree on what it meant when the ink was barely dry.

Conservatives in this country often claim that we were founded as a Christian nation, even though neither God, nor Jesus, make an appearance (though there was something like a dozen attempts to put the word God into the Constitution.

Hell, if it was really as cut and dry as conservatives seem to think, then why do we need a SCOTUS? Why have decisions been made and overturned time and again? Because it' ain't as simple as some claim. If you think it is, then by all means, go write the constitution out in symbolic logic and report back to us in 30 or 40 years when you're done.

At one time, the SCOTUS ruled that "Separate, but Equal" was constitutional. Later, it ruled that Separate is inherently unequal.

How should that be handled? Do you believe that the way it should work is that the court makes no decision unless the founding fathers specifically mentioned it? IOW, when it comes to wiretapping, the technology didn't exist, so they shouldn't make a decision at all.

Alternatively, do you think that the SCOTUS can decide, but whatever they decide is the way things stand forever, or until the constitution is amended to alter the original decision of the court?

Gun rights advocates beleive that the constitution guarantees citizens the right to carry any weapon they choose anywhere they like....yet even in the 1800's, some towns made you give up your guns either when you entered. The other extreme believes that the constitution is referring to the military and thus

The first amendment seems pretty straight forward, and yet there are all kinds of exceptions that the court has interpreted as constitutional over the last 230+ years. Thus, you can't scream fire in a theater. Freedom of the press is guaranteed, most of the time. The press has the right to protect their sources....most of the time.
At one time, it was OK to ban books (and some places still try to ban books).

Saying you believe in the constitution is a meaningless statement, because constitutional scholars can't agree on what is and is not constitutional, and you and I are not a Constitutional scholars.
Click to expand...
Impressive post and a pleasure to read. :D
 
This what I believe as an American.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Click to expand...
 
nilepez said:
The problem is you operate under the mistaken impression that there's only one interpretation of things in the constitution. The guys who signed the paper couldn't agree on what it meant when the ink was barely dry.

Conservatives in this country often claim that we were founded as a Christian nation, even though neither God, nor Jesus, make an appearance (though there was something like a dozen attempts to put the word God into the Constitution.

Hell, if it was really as cut and dry as conservatives seem to think, then why do we need a SCOTUS? Why have decisions been made and overturned time and again? Because it' ain't as simple as some claim. If you think it is, then by all means, go write the constitution out in symbolic logic and report back to us in 30 or 40 years when you're done.

At one time, the SCOTUS ruled that "Separate, but Equal" was constitutional. Later, it ruled that Separate is inherently unequal.

How should that be handled? Do you believe that the way it should work is that the court makes no decision unless the founding fathers specifically mentioned it? IOW, when it comes to wiretapping, the technology didn't exist, so they shouldn't make a decision at all.

Alternatively, do you think that the SCOTUS can decide, but whatever they decide is the way things stand forever, or until the constitution is amended to alter the original decision of the court?

Gun rights advocates beleive that the constitution guarantees citizens the right to carry any weapon they choose anywhere they like....yet even in the 1800's, some towns made you give up your guns either when you entered. The other extreme believes that the constitution is referring to the military and thus

The first amendment seems pretty straight forward, and yet there are all kinds of exceptions that the court has interpreted as constitutional over the last 230+ years. Thus, you can't scream fire in a theater. Freedom of the press is guaranteed, most of the time. The press has the right to protect their sources....most of the time.
At one time, it was OK to ban books (and some places still try to ban books).

Saying you believe in the constitution is a meaningless statement, because constitutional scholars can't agree on what is and is not constitutional, and you and I are not a Constitutional scholars.
Click to expand...
Wonderful. I'm well aware of all the arguments you put forth. I'm one who sees the Constitution as it was intended (by reading the writings of the many founding fathers) and we should not be removing rights from others like we've seen in the past several decades and what our current president describes his agenda is. I could give a shit less about what some "scholar" believes, because the majority of the time they're the ones claiming it's a living breathing document that needs to be changed to fit their agenda for "social justice". I'd rather see it maintain in it's present form in order to prevent tyranny and more theft of my rights/wealth/property.
 
Furthermore, it's hilarious you're even posing some of the questions and "extremes" when it has already been argued back and forth by the original drafters. Read some of their writings to one another, read some of their journals and letters, read the constitutional convention letters, read some letters of the delegates, read some benjamin franklin, thomas payne, patrick henry, alexander hamilton, samuel adams, james madison, etc. You could answer some of your own questions, like how they explicitly stated the people need to protect themselves with the right to bear arms from an oppressive government, or how the states can keep the supreme court in check if they try to bend the constitution, or how you must not limit the freedoms of others through your own actions. Get a clue.
 
nilepez said:
It was out of context, and I believe that it actually took cut out parts of the quote to change the context. It's also worth noting that the audio was filtered to make it sound like that was picked up by a mike from a distance.

Here's the original unedited quote
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up. All of these rogue sources for hate and misinformation plague the internet. When in context it really shows the truth. :)
 
DaedalusHelios said:
Thank you for clearing that up. All of these rogue sources for hate and misinformation plague the internet. When in context it really shows the truth. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it definitely re-affirms that he sees the Constitution as a road block stopping him from taking a fast track to redistributive change and social justice, which he also mentioned in the interview and they left out in that one minute soundbyte.
 
I don't see anything wrong with a single payer system for health care. Seeing as how a third of medical costs are of the administrative type, taking out the profit motive will save $350 billion a year at least if you take a look at current health care costs.

Sounds good to me.
 
thunderstruck! said:
I don't see anything wrong with a single payer system for health care. Seeing as how a third of medical costs are of the administrative type, taking out the profit motive will save $350 billion a year at least if you take a look at current health care costs.

Sounds good to me.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that the government will be as efficient or more efficient than the private sector. I have yet to see any government in the world that runs things more efficiently than the private sector.
 
caniba said:
You are assuming that the government will be as efficient or more efficient than the private sector. I have yet to see any government in the world that runs things more efficiently than the private sector.
Click to expand...
You must be blind because other countries with government run health care spends less on health care than we do (by about 40%) and get far better results than our system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top