Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

[JakeStarkey]

It's just another example of a fascist administration grabbing more power. They've grabbed the auto industry, the banks, and they're trying to grab the health industry as well. Of course they're going after the internet, and they will eventually go after the oil companies.

I love how now the cons cheer the banks that stole their profits; that now continue to badmouth the auto companies that were rescued so that they can continue operating as PRIVATE COMPANIES; and now a health care insurance option which would also enter the competitive FREE MARKET SYSTEM and give Big H's monopoly the boot.

I'm not cheering Anyone, Private Property was confiscated in those rescues. UAW made out pretty well in the scheme. Car Manufacturers were and are crippled by Government Mandate. Your solution corrupts everything it touches, it causes the failures, in the first place. Nationalism is not the solution, it is a step towards totalitarian control Maggie. No productive business can compete with the bottomless pit, which cares nothing about profit and loss, and everything about control. Your Nationalization is to eliminate or acquire that which it now competes. What You Call Free Market, I Call "In Name Only".

Your are either stupid, Intense, or an outright liar.

FexEx, etc., does compete quite well with the USPS.

The USPS competition keeps the private companies from making us give them CrusaderFrank, Elvis, and DiveCon as collateral until we pay our bill.

 

[Intense]

I love how now the cons cheer the banks that stole their profits; that now continue to badmouth the auto companies that were rescued so that they can continue operating as PRIVATE COMPANIES; and now a health care insurance option which would also enter the competitive FREE MARKET SYSTEM and give Big H's monopoly the boot.

I'm not cheering Anyone, Private Property was confiscated in those rescues. UAW made out pretty well in the scheme. Car Manufacturers were and are crippled by Government Mandate. Your solution corrupts everything it touches, it causes the failures, in the first place. Nationalism is not the solution, it is a step towards totalitarian control Maggie. No productive business can compete with the bottomless pit, which cares nothing about profit and loss, and everything about control. Your Nationalization is to eliminate or acquire that which it now competes. What You Call Free Market, I Call "In Name Only".

Your are either stupid, Intense, or an outright liar,

FexEx, etc., compete quite well with the USPS.

The USPS competition keeps the private companies from making us give them CrusaderFrank, Elvis, and DiveCon as collateral until we pay our bill.

I'm neither stupid or a liar Jake. You do not get what you can't control, so you bleed it dry. Your Schemes are not justified. Life, Liberty, Property, We have a Right to. Governments Primary Directive is to Protect and Preserve that. You have strayed too far, laying claim to what is not yours, while failing badly at primary function. Equal Justice is not compatible with Equal Distribution.

I've got no major issues with USPS, That said it does effect Fed-EX and UPS. The big hit on USPS is E-Mail and on-line bill pay. We are just seeing the beginning of that effect.
What is the Budget of USPS? What does it cost in Tax Money?

Considering that the History of USPS goes so far back, and has very little to do with totalitarianism, why use it as an example at all? What point does it serve? How does that make me a liar? Or is it that when reason fails you, you throw stones?

In the more than two centuries since Benjamin Franklin was appointed our first Postmaster General in 1775, the Postal Service™ has grown and changed with America, boldly embracing new technologies to better serve a growing population. We hope you enjoy exploring our rich history.
USPS - Postal History

 

[veritas]

Totalitarian control, eh?



GM bothers you?


What about AIG?


The fact is the government already controls the mechanisms for our communications. That is why they issue licenses. The reason we got radio stations all over the country was a government mandate. The mandate was that in order for the first airlines to operate [which carried mostly only mail in small planes], they had to be in contact by radio to ground stations. So it started on the east coast, every two hundred miles a radio station was built according to the government mandate. The people who did this found a nice spots on hills, built small buildings and erected towers along project routes and in proximity to airstrips. This is how the most original radio stations were all created. And because there was a building on a hill every two hundred miles, programming for regular consumption started. At first it was done for free like cable access. Then it became a commercial venture. The airplane operations conducted their communications on their frequencies and local people had their "shows" on public allocated bandwidths. The few airlines at the time did this because they could bid on the mail routes from the USPS.

Here's some totalitarian control for you:

GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND PREPARATIONS

The introduction of vacuum-tube equipment promised to revolutionize radio. However, all amateur and commercial use of radio came to an abrupt halt on April 7, 1917 when, with the entrance of the United States into World War One, most private U.S. radio stations were ordered by the President to either shut down or be taken over by the government, and for the duration of the war it became illegal for private U.S. citizens to even possess an operational radio transmitter or receiver. Radio in the U.S. had become a government monopoly, reserved for the war effort.

13. Radio During World War One (1914-1919)

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

So I guess it's unimportant to you people, who are at this moment communicating via computer, that in the event of a cyber threat that had the potential to shut down the entire global network, causing banks/markets/life support systems/etc., to simultaneously crash, is a baaaaaaad thing. Interesting.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf

The risk of a risk free life provided and cared for by the federal government is not worth it.

What constitutes an cyber threat to the power of the government ?

 

[mal]

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

So I guess it's unimportant to you people, who are at this moment communicating via computer, that in the event of a cyber threat that had the potential to shut down the entire global network, causing banks/markets/life support systems/etc., to simultaneously crash, is a baaaaaaad thing. Interesting.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf

The risk of a risk free life provided and cared for by the federal government is not worth it.

What constitutes an cyber threat to the power of the government ?

Stop Questioning the Messiah and get back in Line, Peasant!...



peace...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yup
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1468976-post44.html

 

[veritas]

You're not the brightest bulb on the string fitnah.


"yup" is about the most coherent sentence you've typed on here.

 

[veritas]

Here's a prosaic masterpiece by the fitnah:

I hope that post 130 wil give becks detractor on how to use this thread.
It was not nessacery for be to provide any "facts " to back up what I objected to since the video provide prima fascia evidence of the "hosts" problem with B.D.S.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/85916-beck-open-book-test-9.html#post1466793

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Here's a prosaic masterpiece by the fitnah:

I hope that post 130 wil give becks detractor on how to use this thread.
It was not nessacery for be to provide any "facts " to back up what I objected to since the video provide prima fascia evidence of the "hosts" problem with B.D.S.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/85916-beck-open-book-test-9.html#post1466793

Yes typo's they are not the same as your problem .
Are those called think'Os?

 

[veritas]

Clearly you're deranged, fitnah.


Just about every objection or question you had has been answered in a calm manner by numerous people and all you do is post crap from Beck and rightwingnut think tank bozos bent on keeping OPM and the status quo.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Clearly you're deranged, fitnah.


Just about every objection or question you had has been answered in a calm manner by numerous people and all you do is post crap from Beck and rightwingnut think tank bozos bent on keeping OPM and the status quo.

No, one has even attempted to participate in the debate in the prescribed manner ,
Which means noting the time on the video and the video in question ,
stating the objection and bringing proof of the lies.
As for you , you don't even have a firm grasp on the basic facts.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1468976-post44.html

 

[veritas]

Nobody has to perform to your specifications fitnah. It's a message board, people do what they want, threads go off on tangents and there's nothing you can do to herd the cats.

The questions/objections have been answered all over the place. You are dishonest if you post otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mr. Fitnah, you are goofy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Mr. Fitnah, you are goofy.

So is anyone who blindly supports the government, no matter who is in charge.

Just Mr.Fitnah is more intelligent than most.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Nobody has to perform to your specifications fitnah. It's a message board, people do what they want, threads go off on tangents and there's nothing you can do to herd the cats.

The questions/objections have been answered all over the place. You are dishonest if you post otherwise.

I run my threads quite nicely thank you.
If someone wants to try to prove a point they have instructions on how to go about it.
So the exact issue can be addressed in full context.
If you don't care to do so ,that is your prerogative.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Mr. Fitnah, you are goofy.

So is anyone who blindly supports the government, no matter who is in charge.

Just Mr.Fitnah is more intelligent than most.

Ill let you have the last word on that issue .

 

[Zoomie1980]

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

So I guess it's unimportant to you people, who are at this moment communicating via computer, that in the event of a cyber threat that had the potential to shut down the entire global network, causing banks/markets/life support systems/etc., to simultaneously crash, is a baaaaaaad thing. Interesting.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf

US Government already has high-security private intranets, not exposed to Internet risk. The infrastructure already exists to protect the "critical infrastructure" that this bill pretends to aim to protect.

Yes, virtually ALL the classified networks are PRIVATE and not exposed to the public internet at all.

 

[KittenKoder]

So I guess it's unimportant to you people, who are at this moment communicating via computer, that in the event of a cyber threat that had the potential to shut down the entire global network, causing banks/markets/life support systems/etc., to simultaneously crash, is a baaaaaaad thing. Interesting.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf

US Government already has high-security private intranets, not exposed to Internet risk. The infrastructure already exists to protect the "critical infrastructure" that this bill pretends to aim to protect.

Yes, virtually ALL the classified networks are PRIVATE and not exposed to the public internet at all.

Do you understand the difference between "private" and "public"?

 

[Zoomie1980]

They didn't seem to mind that one....memory's are fading I guess.

We didn't mind it because it was necessary, and has resulted in many cells being broken up. Not only that, it included a clause which requires a review and re-vote every so many years.

So I guess that means you don't believe al-Qaeda and other terrorist wannabes use the Internet for communication?

Generally, they don't. They seldom even use cell phones anymore. They do use land-lines, and that is what is tapped, foreign sourced calls coming into the US, over sea-floor lines, coming from switches known in the past to contain terrorist traffic. No one on this forum has ever been tapped by gov't eavesdropping under this act.

 

[Liability]

If this prospective provision of a possible piece of legislation had been proposed under President Bush, the liberals would have gone stark raving mad. Madder.

But when it's proposed under an Obama Administration, libs are not nearly as worked up about it.

The damned thing possess the seeds of some serious abuse.

The answer is not to deny to the President the ability to confront a threat to our cyber-security, however.

The answer is to provide for some significant oversight, and checks and balances.

I do not care for the policies and the politics of President Obama. I am not convinced my mistrust of the man amounts to a sufficient cause to deny him -- and all of us -- the ability to confront a significant cyber-security attack.