Proposed Bill Gives Obama Power to Shut Down Internet

wwjdftw

New member
Mar 27, 2009
568
0
0
NeutralDrow said:
wwjdftw said:
NeutralDrow said:
TheNecroswanson said:
We all understand how laws pass in America.
It gets into congress, whom are afraid of the internet and video games, and if we're lucky, it won't pass. But if the past 2 decades are any indication of what politicians think about anything that isn't apple pie, you can bet they'll be trying to pass it.
Now, kindly piss off, you haven't been here very long, so you don't know very many people. But do not pass sweeping judgments on people you don't know.
I'm not passing sweeping judgments on people I don't know. I'm passing judgment on people I've seen in this thread going "OMG the US government wants to shut down the internet, those retards), "I knew Obama was a communist who wants to control what you think," and the like. I'm sure they're all wonderful yet unbelievably paranoid people; I just wish they'd save the paranoia for something worth it.

well, here you are acting like a total dick whos got his head so far up his own ass a man with an 80 inch penis couldnt get it in your mouth.

and let me geuss your one of those liberals who voted for obama, and thinks that theres absolutley nothing wrong, with spending 7 trillion dollars and taxing the fuck out of the people while they just "hope" to pay it off?
Yep.
well im glad your happy with yourself, people like you are bringing down the world with a smugness comparable to that south park episode[seriousness/]

oh wait

youve got your head so far up your own ass a man with an 80 inch penis couldnt get it in your mouth

yep
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
wwjdftw said:
NeutralDrow said:
wwjdftw said:
NeutralDrow said:
TheNecroswanson said:
We all understand how laws pass in America.
It gets into congress, whom are afraid of the internet and video games, and if we're lucky, it won't pass. But if the past 2 decades are any indication of what politicians think about anything that isn't apple pie, you can bet they'll be trying to pass it.
Now, kindly piss off, you haven't been here very long, so you don't know very many people. But do not pass sweeping judgments on people you don't know.
I'm not passing sweeping judgments on people I don't know. I'm passing judgment on people I've seen in this thread going "OMG the US government wants to shut down the internet, those retards), "I knew Obama was a communist who wants to control what you think," and the like. I'm sure they're all wonderful yet unbelievably paranoid people; I just wish they'd save the paranoia for something worth it.

well, here you are acting like a total dick whos got his head so far up his own ass a man with an 80 inch penis couldnt get it in your mouth.

and let me geuss your one of those liberals who voted for obama, and thinks that theres absolutley nothing wrong, with spending 7 trillion dollars and taxing the fuck out of the people while they just "hope" to pay it off?
Yep.
well im glad your happy with yourself, people like you are bringing down the world with a smugness comparable to that south park episode[seriousness/]

oh wait

youve got your head so far up your own ass a man with an 80 inch penis couldnt get it in your mouth

yep
Glad to hear it.
 

wwjdftw

New member
Mar 27, 2009
568
0
0
my point exactly, and sadly i would have liked to have had a true deabate or SOMETHING with you rather than this, what ever it is your trying to do, because "glad to hear it" and "yep" just make you look like a smart ass, and i count this as win in my book
 

MisterColeman

New member
Mar 19, 2009
162
0
0
For people who are still wondering how they would accomplish this, they would basically broadcast to routers that they are the shortest route to everywhere. Since the routers constantly update in this fashion they would trust this instantly and send all their data to the U.S. government expecting the U.S. government to then deliver it to its final destination faster then the router would have been able to otherwise.

Then the government would simply dump the traffic but send success replies back. I know I'm not using the right terminology, but that's the basics. How the government would be able to handle all that incoming traffic while sending replies back to stop the routers from retrying is beyond me though.
 

Jerious1154

New member
Aug 18, 2008
547
0
0
Shaenightbird said:
Rockerfeller and Snowe. Both Republicans. Hmm.... I'd say they're a little late. The Republican regime is gone now. (good.)
I'm pretty sure that Rockefeller is a Democrat, unless it's a different Rockefeller than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller
 

Sigenrecht

New member
Mar 17, 2008
317
0
0
NeutralDrow said:
wwjdftw said:
NeutralDrow said:
wwjdftw said:
NeutralDrow said:
TheNecroswanson said:
We all understand how laws pass in America.
It gets into congress, whom are afraid of the internet and video games, and if we're lucky, it won't pass. But if the past 2 decades are any indication of what politicians think about anything that isn't apple pie, you can bet they'll be trying to pass it.
Now, kindly piss off, you haven't been here very long, so you don't know very many people. But do not pass sweeping judgments on people you don't know.
I'm not passing sweeping judgments on people I don't know. I'm passing judgment on people I've seen in this thread going "OMG the US government wants to shut down the internet, those retards), "I knew Obama was a communist who wants to control what you think," and the like. I'm sure they're all wonderful yet unbelievably paranoid people; I just wish they'd save the paranoia for something worth it.

well, here you are acting like a total dick whos got his head so far up his own ass a man with an 80 inch penis couldnt get it in your mouth.

and let me geuss your one of those liberals who voted for obama, and thinks that theres absolutley nothing wrong, with spending 7 trillion dollars and taxing the fuck out of the people while they just "hope" to pay it off?
Yep.
well im glad your happy with yourself, people like you are bringing down the world with a smugness comparable to that south park episode[seriousness/]

oh wait

youve got your head so far up your own ass a man with an 80 inch penis couldnt get it in your mouth

yep
Glad to hear it.
Props to Neutral for obvious reasons. Somebody needs to issue a ban to wwjdftw if not only for his incomprehensible name, but also for either being the worst troll I've ever seen or the most obnoxious, shrill, shit-flinging monkey I've ever seen. On the Internet, of course; otherwise, I'd be talking about Sean Hannity.


...and yeah, I'm just baiting wwjdtffffffffffffff I HATE YOUR NAME now.
 

Inverse Skies

New member
Feb 3, 2009
3,630
0
0
I'm getting shades of Stephen King's 'The Stand' where the US tries to suppress the media to prevent knowledge of Captain Trips (superflu) getting out.

Amazing (and scary) that they can actually do that...
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
T-Blade said:
If Britain goes along with this, I will rage...
How many cameras in London again?

On this note, I described what's worth worrying in this bill here: Cybersecurity Act of 2009: The Facts [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2009/04/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-facts.html]
 

Shaenightbird

New member
Apr 7, 2008
140
0
0
Jerious1154 said:
Shaenightbird said:
Rockerfeller and Snowe. Both Republicans. Hmm.... I'd say they're a little late. The Republican regime is gone now. (good.)
I'm pretty sure that Rockefeller is a Democrat, unless it's a different Rockefeller than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller
Hey, thanks for the link!
I guess he's one of those Democrats who behaves as a Republican, then. We had that happen in Connecticut a while back...
 

Clashero

New member
Aug 15, 2008
2,143
0
0
Labyrinth said:
Oh wonderful. Further means for the US to police the world and it's free speech. Security is pointless unless it guarantees privacy, and is paramount upon the latter being preserved. Governments would do better to act on the needs of their people rather than their own fears of the people's dissent.
I usually dislike one word post, but it's difficult to avoid just just quoting you and saying "This".
 

Labyrinth

Escapist Points: 9001
Oct 14, 2007
4,732
0
0
Clashero said:
I usually dislike one word post, but it's difficult to avoid just just quoting you and saying "This".
I must be better than I thought. You're the fourth person to say that.
 

Galletea

Inexplicably Awesome
Sep 27, 2008
2,877
0
0
Yes it could endanger our right to free speech, but I'm not entirely sure that this issue warrants such an uproar. After all we don't know all the details, and it does seem like a failsafe which is very unlikely to ever be implemented. The right to free speech is like all other rights anyway, and that's to a certain degree. It always has been and the security measures encroach upon our privacy in various ways already. I very much doubt this will effectively change anything. Much like the nuclear capabilities which are there, but are unlikely to be used.
 

Clashero

New member
Aug 15, 2008
2,143
0
0
Labyrinth said:
Clashero said:
I usually dislike one word post, but it's difficult to avoid just just quoting you and saying "This".
I must be better than I thought. You're the fourth person to say that.
Well, you said something that was entirely true, well put, and easy to understand.
U R WINNAR
 

Jeronus

New member
Nov 14, 2008
1,305
0
0
I don't see any reason for this PROPOSED bill to pass at all. Everyone acts like it is a sure thing but I can't see this thing getting pass the House or the Senate. Why would he even need to shut down the entire internet. I mean he still has the power to shut down any website so why the entire internet.
 

Ago Iterum

New member
Dec 31, 2007
1,366
0
0
I can see the benifits of this move, and I don't see what the big deal is. It's not as if he's going to shut the internet down for a laugh every thursday night, it's for emergency purposes, and someone should have the ability to shut it down temporarily.
 

Vanguard_Ex

New member
Mar 19, 2008
4,687
0
0
And what exactly would give one man the right to shut down and take over something which is available to everyone? This is ridiculous. What kind of crisis requires complete control of the internet, anyway?
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
galletea said:
Yes it could endanger our right to free speech, but I'm not entirely sure that this issue warrants such an uproar. After all we don't know all the details, and it does seem like a failsafe which is very unlikely to ever be implemented. The right to free speech is like all other rights anyway, and that's to a certain degree.
No. It's a right that should know no boundary. Only education and proper living standards will detract people from bigotry.
But from the moment you start being partial in the freedom of speech, you're starting to kill it and you're being the danger that freedom of speech is capable of revealing.

It always has been and the security measures encroach upon our privacy in various ways already.
It is getting worse, but there is no valid reason for accepting this to happen.
But people let it happen nonetheless, because it's done slowly, step by step, with laws passed by a Congress that doesn't read them, or doesn't have time to do so, or during a time when the Congress numbers less people than usual, and above all, it often happens in the wake of large emotional events.

Now, it takes very little to argue that these large emotional events have been staged by the same who want to pass those restrictive laws, which are the arms, fingers and nails of larger ideologies.
The "best" example being the Reichstag fire [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire].
Of course, it's very easy, and even encouraged, to talk about this false flag event at length, notably because of the inflated manichean vision of the conflict. And also because it's part of official history.

It's already harder to consider such ideas in contemporary days, notably because people are prideful. They live in an age of data and wold wide communication, and like to think they could not be fooled.

I very much doubt this will effectively change anything. Much like the nuclear capabilities which are there, but are unlikely to be used.
Everything it changes. It costs very little to the planet to suppress liberties. Nuking it, on the other hand...
 

clicketycrack

New member
Apr 6, 2009
1,035
0
0
Obama's party was the one harping about the Ole Bushster monitering phonecalls. If he actually did this, all but the most diehard Obama fans would cease to support him.
 

Zombie_Fish

Opiner of Mottos
Mar 20, 2009
4,585
0
0
galletea said:
Yes it could endanger our right to free speech, but I'm not entirely sure that this issue warrants such an uproar. After all we don't know all the details, and it does seem like a failsafe which is very unlikely to ever be implemented. The right to free speech is like all other rights anyway, and that's to a certain degree. It always has been and the security measures encroach upon our privacy in various ways already. I very much doubt this will effectively change anything. Much like the nuclear capabilities which are there, but are unlikely to be used.
True, but if it does get used, it will probably be out of paranoia, and there will be quite an uproar as it is a deprivation of our right to free speech. So I agree to an extent, as like the nuclear capabillities it may very well not be used, but if it does, there will be disaster and the whole country will go into paranoia. It would be like living in a police state, fueled by paranoia.