New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Even then, you have to show a pattern of pressure to indicate I did more than just be a blow hard.
Yes, I am thinking of places where a pattern exists. Saying once 'I wish that bastard was dead' is plainly not something that you should be able to get in trouble for. Dedicating your life to vilifying one person or one group, is something else.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yep, and in those cases people in the positions of being the ring leaders have been brought to trial. Cult leaders, racist groups that kill people, etc... do get brought to trial for this crap. Funny part is the ones that are worst are usually not the ones making speeches. They do it behind closed doors. Or they are politicians and somehow immune...
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
No, you're in denial to try to find the worst possible reading and assume it is the most likely one. Amusingly, exactly the way that AGW alarmists behave.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
A) I'm not trying to change the bill.
You are trying to change what the bill means in your mind. As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
josda1000 wrote:
B) No, it does not give him the power to shut down the internet.
Yes it does, the president will have the power to command ISPs to shutdown service to some or all people, and to block websites. The bill has language that will permit the feds to compensate the ISPs during down time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to change what the bill means in your mind. As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
If that were true, I wouldn't be doing what I do. This is an obviously flawed argument.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the president will have the power to command ISPs to shutdown service to some or all people, and to block websites.
Let's say that happened. Suppose the ISPs shut down service to everyone. Don't you think everyone would be in such an uproar, especially the younger generation (whom the tea parties are slowly becoming more composed of now, thankfully), that the Congress or the President would have to revoke what they did? It'd be so fucking unpopular, and such a wake up call, that it would just never happen. Such an extreme would incite revolution, straight up. But in any case, this does not shut down the internet.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are trying to change what the bill means in your mind. As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
If that were true, I wouldn't be doing what I do. This is an obviously flawed argument.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
the president will have the power to command ISPs to shutdown service to some or all people, and to block websites.
Let's say that happened. Suppose the ISPs shut down service to everyone. Don't you think everyone would be in such an uproar, especially the younger generation (whom the tea parties are slowly becoming more composed of now, thankfully), that the Congress or the President would have to revoke what they did? It'd be so fucking unpopular, and such a wake up call, that it would just never happen. Such an extreme would incite revolution, straight up. But in any case, this does not shut down the internet.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Let's say that happened. Suppose the ISPs shut down service to everyone. Don't you think everyone would be in such an uproar, especially the younger generation (whom the tea parties are slowly becoming more composed of now, thankfully), that the Congress or the President would have to revoke what they did? It'd be so f***ing unpopular, and such a wake up call, that it would just never happen. Such an extreme would incite revolution, straight up.
Yes, I agree, but so is the healthcare law, and the stimulus, and all the other bogus bullshit that people thought would never happen. The bill is in Congress, and it is likely to pass, just like all the other insane bills that we thought would never pass.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
A) I'm not trying to change the bill.
You are trying to change what the bill means in your mind. As all people do, they go into denial to block out bad things.
josda1000 wrote:
B) No, it does not give him the power to shut down the internet.
Yes it does, the president will have the power to command ISPs to shutdown service to some or all people, and to block websites. The bill has language that will permit the feds to compensate the ISPs during down time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Woe is me, oh no! my life will end with no porn OBama's a meanie
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Let's say that happened. Suppose the ISPs shut down service to everyone. Don't you think everyone would be in such an uproar, especially the younger generation (whom the tea parties are slowly becoming more composed of now, thankfully), that the Congress or the President would have to revoke what they did? It'd be so f***ing unpopular, and such a wake up call, that it would just never happen. Such an extreme would incite revolution, straight up.
Yes, I agree, but so is the healthcare law, and the stimulus, and all the other bogus bullshit that people thought would never happen. The bill is in Congress, and it is likely to pass, just like all the other insane bills that we thought would never pass.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
healthcare that's bad, right? No one would want that at all we like being sick
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
It doesn't matter how the network works. The presedent will have the power to COMMAND ISPs to shutdown service and block websites, if they refuse to comply then the IPSs will be fined. It isn't a technological issue.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Let's say that happened. Suppose the ISPs shut down service to everyone. Don't you think everyone would be in such an uproar, especially the younger generation (whom the tea parties are slowly becoming more composed of now, thankfully), that the Congress or the President would have to revoke what they did? It'd be so f***ing unpopular, and such a wake up call, that it would just never happen. Such an extreme would incite revolution, straight up.
Yes, I agree, but so is the healthcare law, and the stimulus, and all the other bogus bullshit that people thought would never happen. The bill is in Congress, and it is likely to pass, just like all the other insane bills that we thought would never pass.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Now, I think you're getting execution mixed up with enactment. Let's say the bill passes. OK, so they can regulate ISPs and such. Will Obama actually shut down the whole internet? A) Just because the bill gets signed into law doesn't mean he'll shut down the net. B) If he actually were to shut down the net, he'll cause revolution. Yes, health"care" got passed into law. This is an economical disaster, and I think we all know the repercussions of this. Well, those of us who understand economics 101. Yes, the stimulus got passed into law. And this is causing more of a breakdown in our system than anything else (except SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. But don't talk about that here, you'll just get shot down.) But that doesn't mean that he has to carry out shutting down the internet. He has the power to, according to you, but it doesn't mean he will.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Now, I think you're getting execution mixed up with enactment. Let's say the bill passes. OK, so they can regulate ISPs and such. Will Obama actually shut down the whole internet? A) Just because the bill gets signed into law doesn't mean he'll shut down the net. B) If he actually were to shut down the net, he'll cause revolution. Yes, health"care" got passed into law. This is an economical disaster, and I think we all know the repercussions of this. Well, those of us who understand economics 101. Yes, the stimulus got passed into law. And this is causing more of a breakdown in our system than anything else (except SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid. But don't talk about that here, you'll just get shot down.) But that doesn't mean that he has to carry out shutting down the internet. He has the power to, according to you, but it doesn't mean he will.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.I didn't say Obama will actually use the power, but he will have the power, and so will the presidents after him. You can say it will cause a revolution, but will it really? I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I didn't say Obama will actually use the power, but he will have the power, and so will the presidents after him. You can say it will cause a revolution, but will it really? I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
Now that's a good point. But, with that in mind, there's no reason to believe it would happen. Unless, this violence escalates, which I doubt because it seems that the tea parties are already having an impact, which would hurt that cause and maybe shut them up. So I still think you're taking it way too far, even for me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
How is the US going to fine ISP's not in the US? French ISP's don't give a s... about this bill, neither the Russians, British, Spanish, Italian, etc etc etc
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
Don't you know? The US is filled with white folks, the best race and all other countries should just do what we say and get out of our way. DUH!
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
It changes people's thinking quickly. SCOTUS said that it is a form of fraud, and I'd have to agree with it.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
changes people's thinking quickly
So you're saying the speed at which people respond to my statements will determine whether it is okay or not. I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people". Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
josda1000 wrote:
changes people's thinking quickly
So you're saying the speed at which people respond to my statements will determine whether it is okay or not. I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people". Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
Chris Meech wrote:
I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people".
FIRE example: People will take it for granted that it's an emergency, and people need to GTFO of the building. Plus, this is pertaining to ALL people inside of the building, there's nobody excluded. KILL ALL example: People will stop to think about any and all logic inside the statement, as opposed to it being an emergency. Plus, only certain people's lives are threatened in the society.
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. Smile
Well, at least we half agree. lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Chris Meech wrote:
I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people".
FIRE example: People will take it for granted that it's an emergency, and people need to GTFO of the building. Plus, this is pertaining to ALL people inside of the building, there's nobody excluded. KILL ALL example: People will stop to think about any and all logic inside the statement, as opposed to it being an emergency. Plus, only certain people's lives are threatened in the society.
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. Smile
Well, at least we half agree. lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
You poor dilusional fool. Have you the faintest idea how the internet - that's the communication network - works? The network is deigned to be resilient to any external atttempts to close it and does not have a single point of failure. Even if the US of A decided to 'switch off', their is nothing you can do to make the rest of the world - Free, Red or French - go off-line. Why the frak do you think anyone outside of the tin-foil brigade will give a flying monkey gonnad about this? The bill is a waste of time and will only prevent you - US citizens - from bugging the rest of the world with your complaints. Now get back to your sock cooking.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
Chris Meech wrote:
I'm still not seeing your distinction between the "FIRE" example and the "Kill all [insert whatever race] people".
FIRE example: People will take it for granted that it's an emergency, and people need to GTFO of the building. Plus, this is pertaining to ALL people inside of the building, there's nobody excluded. KILL ALL example: People will stop to think about any and all logic inside the statement, as opposed to it being an emergency. Plus, only certain people's lives are threatened in the society.
Chris Meech wrote:
Oh and just for the record I think both of these speech types should be constrained. Mainly because each one is an attempt to incite hurtful/unlawful actions against others. Smile
Well, at least we half agree. lol
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Good explanation of the distinction. People call me persnickety, but you might be one up on me there. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
You are stupid. Obama can shut down the whole internet ? OR do you just not realise that Obama has no power over the rest of the world ? Or even what the 'rest of the world' is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Technically the Internet could be severely crippled from within the US, simply because the vast majority of the backbones are routed through the US. The Internet would adapt and stay online, albeit without the US-based servers/sites/users, but there would be a non-trivial degradation of performance. Of course, "Obama can shut down the Internet" is a completely false statement, even assuming that this ridiculous piece of legislation makes it past the first committee, gets voted on, passes, gets sent to the House, passes there, and doesn't get vetoed, all of this without being watered down... So this is all irrelevant.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
josda1000 wrote:
But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses:
Ah, so I am free to say it, but not free to not be arrested ? Well, that's what I believe, too. I think, for example, that neo Nazis should be given the light of day, so they can be openly mocked, in the dark, their views fester. But, some people think free speech means being able to say whatever you like, with no consequences.
josda1000 wrote:
To suggest that all people of a particular race should be killed is ok, but actually doing it is murder, and you must be prosecuted.
So you can say it, so long as you don't mean it ? I disagree, here. My freedom should never impinge on the freedom of others. That's really the simple concept. I am free to not be interfered with, but so are you.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, if you're going to defend freedom, you really have to defend it. Just because something's not PC doesn't mean that it's completely wrong.
That much is true. But, there are things that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest are not wrong.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
there are things that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest are not wrong.
You mean, things like Christianity? I'm OK if yo are willing to let someone decide what those things are, as long as I am the one. If anyone else wants to decide, screw 'em.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
Now that's a good point. But, with that in mind, there's no reason to believe it would happen. Unless, this violence escalates, which I doubt because it seems that the tea parties are already having an impact, which would hurt that cause and maybe shut them up. So I still think you're taking it way too far, even for me.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
So I still think you're taking it way too far, even for me.
It isn't me that is taking it too far, its the government. The bill is not a conspiracy theory.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I didn't say Obama will actually use the power, but he will have the power, and so will the presidents after him. You can say it will cause a revolution, but will it really? I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I think the presedent will shutdown the internet during a revolution.
I can see the cause of your concern. While all the real activists are out changing their country, you will be sat at home with no internet.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.