# Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet



## 95Viper (Apr 13, 2009)

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/obama-shut-down-internet-legislation,7478.html#xtor=RSS-181

I just don't know what to say!

Where  and when, will this madness end?

There is a link to a  pdf of the bill on the page.

The proposed working draft of bill:http://edge.networkworld.com/graphics/2009/0402%20Rockefeller%20cybersecurity%20bill.pdf


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 13, 2009)

good luck. I'll still have my interwebs.


----------



## Evo85 (Apr 13, 2009)

95Viper said:


> Where  and when, will this madness end?



In about 3 yrs..........  :shadedshu


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 13, 2009)

Evo85 said:


> In about 3 yrs..........  :shadedshu



and that's 3 years to long, OBAMA= One Bad Ass Mistake America


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 13, 2009)

I am still reading this thing and I cannot believe some of the cr*p in it.

Government Politicians need to stay out of setting policy for things they have no real grasp of.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2009)

One angry comment has a way of snowballing when americans talk politics - Lets keep this one clean, and the thread wont get closed like every other politically themed one has.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 13, 2009)

I dont know what to say.... cos I really don't...


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Apr 13, 2009)

Just because he can doesn't mean he will. It cant be worse than legalized torture... can it?


----------



## paulm (Apr 13, 2009)

TRIPTEX_MTL said:


> Just because he can doesn't mean he will. It cant be worse than legalized torture... can it?



+1

You guys (who believe this to be true/hate Obama) are all paranoid.

a. The bill is for prevention of cyber attacks. Think DDoS wars between nations.
b. It will not give him the power to shut down the internet, ever. It won't. Wouldn't be possible.
c. @BarbaricSoul, congratulations, Bush was obviously the best choice.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 13, 2009)

It would have to be one major incident to warrant closing the internet. Like every Hacker in the world all hacking the USA at the same time.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2009)

he doesnt have the power to close "the internet" simply because most of its hosted outside the USA.

He will have the power to initiate defensive procedures in the event of cyberwarfare, or skynet invading.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

Cybersecurity Emergency Plan.

This is similar to closing the US borders, Closing all air traffic to the US etc. Only in an emergency would this go into effect.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 13, 2009)

paulm said:


> +1
> 
> You guys (who believe this to be true/hate Obama) are all paranoid.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying Bush was any good either. But when Obama made all these promises, and has gone against ALOT of them, he's no different than Bush was. I'm not trying to get this thread locked, so I won't discuss this here. Sorry Mods


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 13, 2009)

Really guys, let's not turn this into a "trash the president" thread. I'm not in the mood, and I'll be watching.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

TRIPTEX_MTL said:


> Just because he can doesn't mean he will. It cant be worse than legalized torture... can it?



Ill take some water boarding before I give up TPU.

Closing the interwebz = American Revolution part 2.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 13, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Cybersecurity Emergency Plan.
> 
> This is similar to closing the US borders, Closing all air traffic to the US etc. Only in an emergency would this go into effect.



That makes the most sense. I can see a few things that could go wrong. A lot of people lose A LOT of money if the internet went off tho.


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 13, 2009)

he cant shut down the internet because it isnt based soley in america, think its a wide area network all over the planet

hed have to get every country to agree to it even then its not possible because all it is is communicating to other pcs via telephone line whats he going to do destroy every telephone line?

he is making sure things like cyber attack like Denial of service ect cant effect government


its like they put laws to stop terrorists they want to stop cyber terrorism now, they want to stop those internet thieves and internet hackers because they deam that to be a significant threat to national secuity now


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 13, 2009)

Although they did say that the Power Grid in the USA is a bit vulnerable. Maybe this could have something to do with it so that it doesn't happen again.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> That makes the most sense. I can see a few things that could go wrong. A lot of people lose A LOT of money if the internet went off tho.



Exactly imagine all the internet companies instantly losing business as well as internet order companies which would create a chain effect of affecting ATI, Intel etc. This would only be implemented if america was in extreme danger say a hacker got access to weapons etc.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)




----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 13, 2009)

I really really don't know what to say there^^


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 13, 2009)

all i think is that happend was obahma made promises he was never able to fulfill in the first place due to various reasons

he realised when he never had the power to do everythign he said and everyone is against him or he never intended to change things for real


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

h3llb3nd4 said:


> I really really don't know what to say there^^



We are talking about things that can't happen right? So why not some AT-AT love?


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2009)

Quite often things that turn up in fiction, have a somewhat solid basis in reality.

Die hard 4.0 - terrible movie, but made a lot of people aware that cyber terrorism is a real threat.
Terminator - sure skynets not likely to appear, but a nasty virus written by a foreign government as a premise to invasion/war, is definately likely.

Think of this as shutting the internet links off between the USA and the rest of the world temporarily, until the problem is gone. It will only be used in extreme situations.



TheMailMan78 said:


> We are talking about things that can't happen right? So why not some AT-AT love?



Because this is "networking and security" and not general nonsense.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> Quite often things that turn up in fiction, have a somewhat solid basis in reality.
> 
> Die hard 4.0 - terrible movie, but made a lot of people aware that cyber terrorism is a real threat.
> Terminator - sure skynets not likely to appear, but a nasty virus written by a foreign government as a premise to invasion/war, is definately likely.
> ...



Off topic: Mussles I F*$KING love your new Avy.

Also this is nonsense. I'm in no way an Obama supporter. I don't like the guy at all. However bills like this are passed ALL the time. This is only a worse case deal. Nothing more. So I think giant robots having sex are just as likely as this bill happening.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> and that's 3 years to long, OBAMA= One Bad Ass Mistake America



You realize Obama had little to do with this bill, correct?



MilkyWay said:


> he cant shut down the internet because it isnt based soley in america, think its a wide area network all over the planet
> 
> hed have to get every country to agree to it even then its not possible because all it is is communicating to other pcs via telephone line whats he going to do destroy every telephone line?
> 
> ...



This isn't talking about shutting down the internet globally, only cutting the connections to the USA, essentially isolating the USA from the rest of the worlds network in the event of a cyber attack.  This would require no agreements with any other countries.


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> he doesnt have the power to close "the internet" simply because most of its hosted outside the USA.
> 
> He will have the power to initiate defensive procedures in the event of cyberwarfare, or skynet invading.




Mussels after reading thru this, it is a horrible piece of legislation.  Not an Obama thing or American(just passionate) thing(anyway,most of my relatives are from Australia and England, he he).

It is the fine print which is scary.

They wants all cybersecurity professionals to be certified by the cybersecurity dept, before you can do any thing with the gov't, affiliates and any system they deem important to the security of US.

They have wording in there to standardize, to their standards, what language to use or develop for systems, programs and such.

And, this definition is overboard...

8   SEC. 23. DEFINITIONS.
9   In this Act:
10 (1) ADVISORY PANEL.—The term ‘‘Advisory
11 Panel’’ means the Cybersecurity Advisory Panel es
12 tablished or designated under section 3.
_13 (2) CYBER.—The term ‘‘cyber’’ means—
14 (A) any process, program, or protocol re
15 lating to the use of the Internet or an intranet,
16 automatic data processing or transmission, or
17 telecommunication via the Internet or an
18 intranet; and
19 (B) any matter relating to, or involving the
20 use of, computers or computer networks._

It looks as, if they want total control, over everything, but your non-connected TI-85.

Just my opinion, read for yourselves.
I ain't here to argue or point no fingers, just presenting some facts.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2009)

Olympia Snowe <-- She's a Republican defector.  She was one of only three Republican Senators to vote in favor of the bailout package.

And I thought the Internet was supposed to be "free."


----------



## Mussels (Apr 13, 2009)

95Viper said:


> Mussels after reading thru this, it is a horrible piece of legislation.  Not an Obama thing or American(just passionate) thing(anyway,most of my relatives are from Australia and England, he he).
> 
> It is the fine print which is scary.
> 
> ...



While it might have some scary things in it, there are a few things to keep in mind.

1. This is only a proposal. It may not get approved.

2. Even if it does get approved, it may not work, or takes years/decades to impliment (or get scrapped)

3. It wont affect me... so while its heartless, i dont care too much.


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 13, 2009)

But, I luv to banter with you...


----------



## Flyordie (Apr 13, 2009)

Now here I come!
not... maybe... heres 2 cents...
As long as it doesn't affect what traffic can/can't be blocked, im ok with it. Bush was wrong when he introduced his unconstitutional spai programs and forced the ISPs (although Verizon and AT&T were willing participants and are being sued bankrupt by its shareholders and customers for it)... 

So the idea of the govt controlling the internet is to far reaching to be allowed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2009)

Mussels said:


> It wont affect me... so while its heartless, i dont care too much.


Don't be so certain.  If this is implemented in the USA, other countries may use it as an example and do much the same.  It has happened many times in the past.  For example, Australian geo-power supporters are using USA as an example of how government must subsidize wind power plants for it to be cost competitive with coal.


----------



## js01 (Apr 13, 2009)

It doesn't matter who americans elect into office because they're all crooked that's just politics in general.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

js01 said:


> It doesn't matter who americans elect into office because they're all crooked that's just politics in general.



Overpromise and underdeliver. The motto of the politician.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

js01 said:


> It doesn't matter who americans elect into office because they're all crooked that's just politics in general.



This has been my conclusion also.


----------



## Frick (Apr 13, 2009)

Haha, I see the future as a combination of Skynet and Big Brother. I don't know what to say about this thing, in many ways it's not THAT bad imo, but still. The future is dark, my Children!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

Frick said:


> Haha, I see the future as a combination of Skynet and Big Brother. I don't know what to say about this thing, in many ways it's not THAT bad imo, but still. The future is dark, my Children!



<<< listening to Pearl Jam

ITS EVOLUTION BABY!


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 13, 2009)

Frick said:


> Haha, I see the future as a combination of Skynet and Big Brother. I don't know what to say about this thing, in many ways it's not THAT bad imo, but still. The future is dark, my Children!




By the way off topic, sorta :http://www.skynetresearch.com/

View attachment 24962


----------



## Jakl (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Off topic: Mussles I F*$KING love your new Avy.
> 
> Also this is nonsense. I'm in no way an Obama supporter. I don't like the guy at all. However bills like this are passed ALL the time. This is only a worse case deal. Nothing more. So I think giant robots having sex are just as likely as this bill happening.



lol Great Avvy as well..

To think about this new Internet Secrurity going on... I know so many people pirate software and movies over the internet... Most of us purchase our products cause we officially "own" a legit copy so no worries down the road to patch software or games with newer updates , and daily people are developing better security in the software..

But I hate that they are invading our privacy , and spending way to much money on this crap instead of fixing whats happening in Iraq and crap over there, and the economy.. 

Luckly Living in Canada will give us some more time if this happens lol


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (Apr 13, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Overpromise and underdeliver. The motto of the politician.



A politician dies and goes to heaven.

Because he’s the first of his kind to reach the pearly gates, St. Peter isn’t sure what to do, so he tells the guy to wait while he asks the boss. St. Peter comes back and tells the politician, “The boss says you have to spend a full day here and a full day in hell, then you have to choose where to spend eternity.”

The politician says o.k., and decides to spend the first day in hell. It’s GREAT – all his friends are there, there’s a great party going on, cocktails, beautiful women… he has a wonderful time, and before he knows it, his day is up and it’s time to go upstairs.

His day in heaven is pretty good too – so much fun that he again loses track of time and the day goes by in a flash. and now it’s time to choose.

The politician tells St. Peter, “You may think i’m crazy, but i had more fun in hell, all my friends are there, and I just think I’ll be happier there.”

St. Peter says, “OK, fine by me, it’s your choice,” and the politician goes back to hell.

But when the elevator doors open, it’s nothing but agony and misery, lakes of fire, souls wailing in torment… the politician looks up at satan and says, “But but but – I don’t understand, yesterday everything was so cool and fun, what happened?”

Satan smiles down at him and says, “Well, yesterday was the campaign, today you voted for us.”


----------



## rampage (Apr 13, 2009)

to me and as said earlier its simlar to shutting down the air ports and the borders ect, it would only be used in emergencies.

also how exactly would they do this?  shut down com satalites? shut down servers and hubs? shut down isps?  i havent read the bill but im still curious.  and would it be somthing that could be done in the matter of minuites (or even secconds) there would be no use in having this ability is its going to take 3 days to isolate america from the rest of the internet

** alos would this involve shutting down phone communications in any way..  (just thinking of ppl using there mobile (cell) phone to connect to the interwebs, also what is to stop some one from setting up silmalr system to a HAM radio (i think thats whats its called) and patching that into the isolated network ???   (using cb radios as a form of wireless networking) ....   for every way of shutting it down there seams to be 2 other ways of getting data in and out    

soz but i was just throwing around idears in my head


----------



## ChaoticAtmosphere (Apr 13, 2009)

Even if there is government and corporate co-operation to "turn off the internet " We can always pull out our 56k modems!!


----------



## Polaris573 (Apr 13, 2009)

For all of you people blaming Obama I would like to call notice to the fact that the bill was proposed by a republican senator, and a democrat senator not Obama.  So how is it directly or indirectly his fault?  Most likely the legislation description reads "the President has the authority to..." not "Obama has the authority to...."  Really people should pay more attention to who they elect to the senate and the house because, in theory, they're the ones that can and do propose new laws. Congress deserves a lot of the flak people direct at presidents.  In summary, citizens need to learn to use their critical thinking skills and direct criticism where it belongs, not merely at the easiest target.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the people who hate obama for limiting their freedom support/supported the patriot act, and other limiting legislation, as necessary for their safety.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> For all of you people blaming Obama I would like to call notice to the fact that the bill was proposed by a republican senator, and a democrat senator not Obama.  So how is it directly or indirectly his fault?  Most likely the legislation description reads "the President has the authority to..." not "Obama has the authority to...."  Really people should pay more attention to who they elect to the senate and the house because, in theory, they're the ones that can and do propose new laws. Congress deserves a lot of the flak people direct at presidents.  In summary, citizens need to learn to use their critical thinking skills and direct criticism where it belongs, not merely at the easiest target.
> 
> I also have a sneaking suspicion that the people who hate obama for limiting their freedom support/supported the patriot act and other limiting legislation as necessary for their safety.



I can't stand Obama but I agree with you here 100%. People getting all up about this bill are just fanning flames. NOW if this was an anti-gun bill I would be super pissed. Republican or Democrat.


----------



## niko084 (Apr 13, 2009)

Presidents get so much flame for the power they really don't have alone.. They are the headpiece so they get it all...

Now on to the facts, get real people, this isn't just gonna be a I'm crabby and you are pirating music so I'm gonna cut the lines...

They also cannot shut down the internet, let alone even the lines in the US, all our communications lines run over the same lines. They would kill the lines leaving the country, and if the attack was from inside, they will kill the lines they needed and only those ones for other obvious reasons.

If you are so incredibly concerned over this law, maybe you should check into some of the other laws and powers the government actually has over you if they feel the need to use it.

If we ever had a president try to pull some random crap of cutting the internet, can you imagine the power of the people in this country deciding they are not going to put up with our government. Remember the military is part of them, lets see you active duty guys get told to open fire on citizens that have good reason and you know it, not going to happen, plus our people have more guns.

Chill out, stupid stuff like this is passed all the time.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> For all of you people blaming Obama I would like to call notice to the fact that the bill was proposed by a republican senator, and a democrat senator not Obama.  So how is it directly or indirectly his fault?  Most likely the legislation description reads "the President has the authority to..." not "Obama has the authority to...."  Really people should pay more attention to who they elect to the senate and the house because, in theory, they're the ones that can and do propose new laws. Congress deserves a lot of the flak people direct at presidents.  In summary, citizens need to learn to use their critical thinking skills and direct criticism where it belongs, not merely at the easiest target.
> 
> I also have a sneaking suspicion that the people who hate obama for limiting their freedom support/supported the patriot act, and other limiting legislation, as necessary for their safety.



Indeed.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 13, 2009)

It will be interesting to watch what happens with this bill...
I have to agree though that this has nothing to do with Obama ~ has to do with Senators pushing their own agenda.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

I miss Candle. HE would be a riot on this subject.


----------



## Polaris573 (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I miss Candle. HE would be a riot on this subject.



Fun for you.. not for me.  I would have to clean up the silly mess he would make. 

It might destroy him though.  On one hand he is 10000% in support of limiting freedom to ensure safety.  On the other hand he would believe only Republicans should wield that power and he would be 10000% against letting Obama have it.  It might be enough to make him schizophrenic.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> Fun for you.. not for me.  I would have to clean up the silly mess he would make.
> 
> It might destroy him though.  On one hand he is 10000% in support of limiting freedom to ensure safety.  On the other hand he would believe only Republicans should wield that power and he would be 10000% against letting Obama have it.  It might be enough to make him schizophrenic.



 I know. I just wish we could have a youtube video of him replying. Ever see the Simpsons where Homer sees an infomercial and can't dial the phone out of excitement?


----------



## DaMulta (Apr 13, 2009)

I think it;s a great idea personally.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> For all of you people blaming Obama I would like to call notice to the fact that the bill was proposed by a republican senator, and a democrat senator not Obama.


In case you missed it, that Republican senator (Olympia Snow) is as much a Democrat as Hillary Clinton.  That is, she's only a Republican by title, not by action.  It is very unlikely she will get reelected, especially as a Republican (Independent or Democrat, if at all).

I agree though that this has nothing to do with Obama...yet.  Wait until it lands on his desk and he signs it before taking jabs at him.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

Its a bill that is not that important because they already have the means to do so. The method of doing it the way that the bill states is simply a non-distructive way.

Its nothing compared to Patroit Acts 1 and 2 which allow you to be detained indefinately for no given reason in secret prisons immune to our law system and there is no limit to how many people they can do it to. BTW those "1984" type bills were passed by a majority republican Congress and a republican president(George W. Bush). So if you care about freedom, you wouldn't like republican policy.


If the president can declare war on any country for any reason..... don't you think the internet isn't going to be a dangerous option as a means of protecting our power grid and defense systems from being controlled in a cyber attack? Its very possible and Obama has no interest in lowering internet commerce so he will most likely never use it anyway. 

PS. Its so funny to see people still horrified we have a half-black president. And campaign promises are already on the way to being filled. It takes time to make things happen for the better in Washington. He can't snap his fingers and make everything happen. Its called legislative process and it takes months to make things happen and come into effect. Has he even been in office 100 days and people complain about him not fullfilling promises. Never has any president been given as many expectations for his first 100 days. I suggest everyone wait until the end of the first term before addressing what promises he has fulfilled like any intelligent person would do... when its a valid topic of discussion.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> PS. Its so funny to see people still horrified we have a half-black president. And campaign promises are already on the way to being filled. It takes time to make things happen for the better in Washington. He can't snap his fingers and make everything happen. Its called legislative process and it takes months to make things happen and come into effect. Has he even been in office 100 days and people complain about him not fullfilling promises. Never has any president been given as many expectations for his first 100 days. I suggest everyone wait until the end of the first term before addressing what promises he has fulfilled like any intelligent person would do... when its a valid topic of discussion.




Agree 100%


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios you're right. It does take time. With that being said however how many things has he gone back on so far? Thats more of an issue for me. The man is a socialist.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> DaedalusHelios you're right. It does take time. With that being said however how many things has he gone back on so far? Thats more of an issue for me. The man is a socialist.



Obama's views are badged Socialist by the republican media. All of his policies make us more like Europe, Canada, and the rest of the "1st world"(all very prosperous nations with high standard of living like us). By your definition then these nations are all socialist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

Kind of sadening actually. You must have a view covering more than just America and realize these policies are in effect and helping the rest of the world. Its where we fall behind in the grand scheme of things involving safety and human health. Also its terribly sad to see the lack of compassion for your fellow man that many exhibit in the economic downturn and badge compassion as socialism. I don't care how you badge good policies that strengthen America and make us great.... I only care how it benefits us as a whole. The fastest growing form of bankruptsy in america comes from medical expenses. Never has saving a life come at such a cost.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Obama's views are badged Socialist by the republican media. All of his policies make us more like Europe, Canada, and the rest of the "1st world"(all very prosperous nations with high standard of living like us). By your definition then these nations are all socialist:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
> 
> Kind of sadening actually. You must have a view covering more than just America and realize these policies are in effect and helping the rest of the world. Its where we fall behind in the grand scheme of things involving safety and human health. Also its terribly sad to see the lack of compassion for your fellow man that many exhibit in the economic downturn and badge compassion as socialism. I don't care how you badge good policies that strengthen America and make us great.... I only care how it benefits us as a whole. The fastest growing form of bankruptsy in america comes from medical expenses. Never has saving a life come at such a cost.


No I badge these things as Socialism because they are. I could care less what the media says. Being like the "Jones" when you are NOT isn't the smartest move. Brutal capitalism has worked for over 200 years in the United States. Survival of the financial fittest. Now because a few jackasses made some bad financial moves I have to pay for it. Go forth and prosper for someone else isn't the American way.

Saying "We need to be like Europe" is as bad as saying "Europe needs to be like America" We are not the same. What works there cannot work here. It's not what we were founded on.

To my European friends I say this with respect and in no way am I trashing your way of life. Its just different than ours and I think diversity is what makes the world turn.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No I badge these things as Socialism because they are. I could care less what the media says. Being like the "Jones" when you are NOT isn't the smartest move. Brutal capitalism has worked for over 200 years in the United States. Survival of the financial fittest. Now because a few jackasses made some bad financial moves I have to pay for it. Go forth and prosper for someone else isn't the American way.
> 
> Saying "We need to be like Europe" is as bad as saying "Europe needs to be like America" We are not the same. What works there cannot work here. It's not what we were founded on.
> 
> To my European friends I say this with respect and in no way am I trashing your way of life. Its just different than ours and I think diversity is what makes the world turn.



I wish europe was more like america tbh. Except in eating habits


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I wish europe was more like america tbh. Except in eating habits


  I haven't heard that in a while.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

But by your example we shouldn't change anything. Our nation was founded in a time not anything like ours. You must choose what is best and not worship our founding fathers like demigods with the powers to see into the future.

Lincoln made the greatest constitutional breach when he made us a no longer a voluntary union and made death the punishment for such acts. We haven't repealed that breach and some say they represent the party of Lincoln. If we value the constitution why did we create the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 which were huge absolute breachs of all constitutional amendments at will.

Nothing is wrong with taking the policies of Europe that benefit us and not the ones that don't. If we didn't we would still have slavery. I really don't think we would be better off not learning from the rest of the worlds successes and failures. That is like saying the USA is too perfect to need change. Liberalism and progressiveness created pornography. Without it most guys populating this forum wouldn't have internet connections.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I haven't heard that in a while.



since 1945 to be precise


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I wish europe was more like america tbh. Except in eating habits



Europe has alot to learn from America. But America has alot to learn from what you take for granted that we do not have.

Europe has many issues like not standing up against immigrants, a strange fear of guns, and bribery in its business sector. But most of Europe doesn't let there poor die from easily cured deseases out of negligence. 

A simple trip to the hospital for heart trouble in America can end up costing over $100,000 from surgery and hospital stay. You could lose your house, car, and have to file for bankruptsy just to cover the procedure to live. Is that fair? 

I have insurance and I lost my inheritence,savings, and my car because of my kidney surgery. Anyone can be the casualty of a careless system. But trying to keep your system that way out of a simple fear of change, is negligence on your part too.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> But by your example we shouldn't change anything. Our nation was founded in a time not anything like ours. You must choose what is best and not worship our founding fathers like demigods with the powers to see into the future.
> 
> Lincoln made the greatest constitutional breach when he made us a no longer a voluntary union and made death the punishment for such acts. We haven't repealed that breach and some say they represent the party of Lincoln. If we value the constitution why did we create the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 which were huge absolute breachs of all constitutional amendments at will.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with taking the policies of Europe that benefit us and not the ones that don't. If we didn't we would still have slavery. I really don't think we would be better off not learning from the rest of the worlds successes and failures. That is like saying the USA is too perfect to need change. Liberalism and progressiveness created pornography. Without it most guys populating this forum wouldn't have internet connections.



Ok porn has been around as long as man has walked the earth. Giving credit to any one group is just stupid. Just look at the Khajuraho-Lakshmana Temple for one example.

I never said I agreed with the Patriot acts ether. However at the same time they didn't effect my paycheck or my everyday life. Still they were wrong to invoke it. But why hasn't Obama revoked it? Makes you wonder about the whole "liberal vs conservative" crap they have you believe. Oh and as for slavery Europe had it up until 1869 which was AFTER the U.S. scrapped the practice. FYI Lincoln was shot for the shit he pulled. Not a good example. But of course MLK was a republican but we like to forget that because he was shot by a evil white guy.


----------



## Polaris573 (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Liberalism and progressiveness created pornography. Without it most guys populating this forum wouldn't have internet connections.



I just have to say... please read a history book..... you might be surprised by how it enriches your understanding of where you're from and where you are going.  Not everything wrong with the world is the result of some vague 1950's progressive movement.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> I just have to say... please read a history book..... you might be surprised by how it enriches your understanding of where you're from and where you are going.



DaedalusHelios you're a smart guy but man the porn comment was just dumb. 



Polaris573 said:


> Not everything wrong with the world is the result of some vague 1950's progressive movement.


 My wife would have you believe its my fault.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> For all of you people blaming Obama I would like to call notice to the fact that the bill was proposed by a republican senator, and a democrat senator not Obama.  So how is it directly or indirectly his fault?  Most likely the legislation description reads "the President has the authority to..." not "Obama has the authority to...."  Really people should pay more attention to who they elect to the senate and the house because, in theory, they're the ones that can and do propose new laws. Congress deserves a lot of the flak people direct at presidents.  In summary, citizens need to learn to use their critical thinking skills and direct criticism where it belongs, not merely at the easiest target.
> 
> I also have a sneaking suspicion that the people who hate obama for limiting their freedom support/supported the patriot act, and other limiting legislation, as necessary for their safety.



I, too, hate Obama, but I still agree with you on this. (I was against the Patriot Act from the beginning, btw).


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Europe has alot to learn from America. But America has alot to learn from what you take for granted that we do not have.
> 
> Europe has many issues like not standing up against immigrants, a strange fear of guns, and bribery in its business sector. But most of Europe doesn't let there poor die from easily cured deseases out of negligence.



Actually there are alot of guns at least in the UK but there are no handguns as far as I'm aware only rifles and shotguns. I do like the free health care here but the health services are very reluctant to help you unless they can be held responsible. For example on the bus to school the bus hit a pothole and a muscle in my neck snapped and the hospital refused to do anythign because it wasn't life threatning but it was incredibly painful and I needed a neckbrace because my head was stuck leaning to the left


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 1.Ok porn has been around as long as man has walked the earth. Giving credit to any one group is just stupid. Just look at the Khajuraho-Lakshmana Temple for one example.
> 
> I never said I agreed with the Patriot acts ether.
> 
> ...




1. I meant pornography in modern media because conservative interests fought it for years. There are a tons of examples if you need them.  *Watch it with the insults please*


2. If they decided to detain you in a secret prison under false pretenses it would. Also you would have no legal reprecussion under that system so good luck fighting that. Of course you are not islamic so you probably wouldn't care what would happen to them anyway.


3. Obama couldn't revoke it because they would act like he was not trying to protect America. Just the same as they always do if you ever question their defense spending even if its in failed technology. 

4.Lincoln only wanted to weaken the south since the labor there was slave labor. They still had slavery in the North until after the Civil War. Lincoln was shot for the crap he did to the south in the reconstruction period. England and its empire, offered to assist the South in the civil war if they agreed to revoke slave labor but the South declined. That is called European policy, the English empire was considered part of Europe.

5. MLK was a republican because the parties switched on the topic of civil rights and he then became a democrat because of the platform shift that ocurred thanks to JFK. Its all over the internet and history books. Just read about what formed the Dixie-crats.

Hopefully you will read that. If you need elaboration I can help with that too. Its most likely on Wikipedia for a quick reference too.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 13, 2009)

BarbaricSoul said:


> and that's 3 years to long, OBAMA= One Bad Ass Mistake America



Why, won't the bill give the same power to Obama's successors?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

Polaris573 said:


> I just have to say... please read a history book..... you might be surprised by how it enriches your understanding of where you're from and where you are going.  Not everything wrong with the world is the result of some vague 1950's progressive movement.



Funny coming from a libertarian. Read post #68. You should know, you are still in college right?


----------



## Wile E (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Obama's views are badged Socialist by the republican media. All of his policies make us more like Europe, Canada, and the rest of the "1st world"(all very prosperous nations with high standard of living like us). By your definition then these nations are all socialist:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
> 
> Kind of sadening actually. You must have a view covering more than just America and realize these policies are in effect and helping the rest of the world. Its where we fall behind in the grand scheme of things involving safety and human health. Also its terribly sad to see the lack of compassion for your fellow man that many exhibit in the economic downturn and badge compassion as socialism. I don't care how you badge good policies that strengthen America and make us great.... I only care how it benefits us as a whole. The fastest growing form of bankruptsy in america comes from medical expenses. Never has saving a life come at such a cost.





DaedalusHelios said:


> But by your example we shouldn't change anything. Our nation was founded in a time not anything like ours. You must choose what is best and not worship our founding fathers like demigods with the powers to see into the future.
> 
> Lincoln made the greatest constitutional breach when he made us a no longer a voluntary union and made death the punishment for such acts. We haven't repealed that breach and some say they represent the party of Lincoln. If we value the constitution why did we create the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 which were huge absolute breachs of all constitutional amendments at will.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with taking the policies of Europe that benefit us and not the ones that don't. If we didn't we would still have slavery. I really don't think we would be better off not learning from the rest of the worlds successes and failures. That is like saying the USA is too perfect to need change. Liberalism and progressiveness created pornography. Without it most guys populating this forum wouldn't have internet connections.


We shouldn't change a damn thing, and we sure as hell shouldn't be bailing out failing corporations. I don't care how it effects anything, it's the way Capitalism is supposed to be, and you have to take the bad with the good.

As far as the Patriot Act, that was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever.

I'm somewhat of a purist when it comes to American policies. My taxes should go to running the govt, not to helping out those I didn't choose to help. If I want to help someone, I will do it of my own will. I would never choose to help AIG, or the Big 3.

My freedoms should never be taken from me for the sake of safety.


----------



## Polaris573 (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Funny coming from a libertarian. Read post #68. You should know, you are still in college right?



Sorry sir.  Without context I misunderstood and assumed you mean pornographic material in general.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

Wile E said:


> We shouldn't change a damn thing, and we sure as hell shouldn't be bailing out failing corporations. I don't care how it effects anything, it's the way Capitalism is supposed to be, and you have to take the bad with the good.
> 
> As far as the Patriot Act, that was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever.
> 
> ...



Thats libertarianism which is brilliant in theory but I do not belive our markets are strong enough to withstand a fall deeper than they have seen without causing permanent damage and forcing desperation on those that do not deserve it.

Anti-trust laws should have come into effect on these companies that were so big that we couldn't let them fall completely. I think our regulation was to weak and half the regulation out there is bad from the beginning.




Polaris573 said:


> Sorry sir.  Without context I misunderstood and assumed you mean pornographic material in general.



BTW I don't think Libertarianism is bad. I think that many of their views make them a better platform than republicans and they deserve to be a recognized third party in all elections because I would vote libertarian before republican anyday.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Thats libertarianism which is brilliant in theory but I do not belive our markets are strong enough to withstand a fall deeper than they have seen without causing permanent damage and forcing desperation on those that do not deserve it.
> 
> Anti-trust laws should have come into effect on these companies that were so big that we couldn't let them fall completely. I think our regulation was to weak and half the regulation out there is bad from the beginning.



I will give a little on the regulation of big business aspect. I'm smart enough to know that 100% true capitalism doesn't work. Regulation is needed. But I will not give on my money going to failing businesses, or to socialist healthcare.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ok porn has been around as long as man has walked the earth. Giving credit to any one group is just stupid. Just look at the Khajuraho-Lakshmana Temple for one example.



Khajuraho wasn't really porn in its time. Its more or less a depiction of what was kosher back then (when Islam didn't establish itself in the Indian society). Today it looks porn because it's world order for women to have their breasts covered. That wasn't an order with Indians back then, not even with princesses.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Khajuraho wasn't really porn in its time. Its more or less a depiction of what was kosher back then (when Islam didn't didn't establish itself in the Indian society). Today it looks porn because it's world order for women to have their breasts covered. That wasn't an order with Indians back then, not even with princesses.



So thats what all the old people meant by the good old days  



Wile E said:


> or to socialist healthcare.



Why wouldn't you pay less for pretty much the same health care ?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Khajuraho wasn't really porn in its time. Its more or less a depiction of what was kosher back then (when Islam didn't didn't establish itself in the Indian society). Today it looks porn because it's world order for women to have their breasts covered. That wasn't an order with Indians back then, not even with princesses.



Thank you for that. I didn't know that. My knowledge of Indian culture before the Islamic movement is really low.




DrPepper said:


> Why wouldn't you pay less for pretty much the same health care ?



We would even have less lines at the emergency room. Judging by the infant mortality rate and rate of staff infection, we would have better care than we do now.

But we would still have healthcare in the private sector if we had a national healthcare system. Just the low income people would go for the free services and the pay services would offer less waiting and maybe better care and more options.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 13, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> So thats what all the old people meant by the good old days
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't you pay less for pretty much the same health care ?



It wouldn't be the same quality of health care. I have family in both Canada and Europe, and they have to wait an extraordinarily long time for routine visits, compared to the US.

Not only that, I have a hard enough time paying for my own healthcare, I'm not gonna pay for someone else's as well. What is needed is better regulation, not socialist healthcare.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Obama's views are badged Socialist by the republican media. All of his policies make us more like Europe, Canada, and the rest of the "1st world"(all very prosperous nations with high standard of living like us). By your definition then these nations are all socialist:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World


You forget that we are the most prosperous country on the planet and that is with a capitalist economy governed by a Constiutional Federal Republic.  Being like "Europe, Canada, and the rest of the 'first world'" is a downgrade, not an upgrade.

Notice how all the "first world" countries were never tainted by Communism. The "second world" countries are those that were.  The "third world" countries are still pre-industrial, have limited resources available, controlled by selfish dictators, and/or too busy killing each other to prosper.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 13, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It wouldn't be the same quality of health care. I have family in both Canada and Europe, and they have to wait an extraordinarily long time for routine visits, compared to the US.
> 
> Not only that, I have a hard enough time paying for my own healthcare, I'm not gonna pay for someone else's as well. What is needed is better regulation, not socialist healthcare.



If it was the same system as here then you wouldn't pay much plus you have the option of private healthcare if you wish. Personally I think the NHS could do better but the lifespan in europe is higher than american despite our healthcare systems having lower quality. If any not by much. Also your paying for someone else's healthcare and they are paying for yours it works out to be cheaper.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It wouldn't be the same quality of health care. I have family in both Canada and Europe, and they have to wait an extraordinarily long time for routine visits, compared to the US.
> 
> Not only that, I have a hard enough time paying for my own healthcare, I'm not gonna pay for someone else's as well. What is needed is better regulation, not socialist healthcare.


I don't think regulation is the problem.  There are a few main problems with the current healthcare system:
1) Equipment, especially surgery and imaging, is extraordinarily expensive.
2) Staff wages are paid very well and the wages need to raise with inflation.
3) Staff getting sued.
4) Prescription prices are extremely high.  There needs to be massive legal drug business reform.  Two things I think need to be done here:
  a) Make it illegal to advertise to the public for prescription medications.  That is for doctors to know and you to find out.
  b) Patents on drugs must expire in no less than 6 months from the date the patent is registered.
5) Patients need to know the costs up front, not two weeks after the fact.  Healthcare should be more of a contractual obligation of service rather than a pay-as-you-go service.  Pay-as-you-go means people declaring bankruptcy and also facilitates the need for insurance corps.  This would also lead to competition among health care facilities for more expensive, no immediate care necessary, treatments.
6) Perhaps all companies involved in health of human beings should be required to be not-for-profit.  They can spend some of those excess profits on paying off debts consumers couldn't pay (must provide service even if you can't afford it clause) rather than expanding their empire.  The alternative to this is removing the clause and allowing healthcare facilities to turn patients away (which I doubt anyone would go for).  The homeless and the mentally unstable cause millions of dollars of damage annually because of that clause which the healthcare system must absorb (inflating costs).

I believe addressing #5, especially, would cause healthcare prices to drop dramatically and may even mean a lot of younger, health people from not needing insurance at all.

It is more important to reduce costs than it is to have socialized health insurance. Remember, the entire concept of health insurance is an effect to the cause that is the underlying healthcare costs.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 13, 2009)

I thought China loaned a huge sum of money to the USA to help pay for the whooping budget deficit they have? One reason why America is such a "prosperous" is because you have a habit of creating money from nothing and somehow run up a huge debt with out it (until now) effecting the economy.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2009)

China has been buying up USA debt because China doesn't spend outside of their means.  Still, the USA GDP is twice as high for only having one-third/one-quarter the population.

There's a lot to the public debt/poor spending habits issue inside the USA but...it is a complex subject.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Apr 14, 2009)

So technically China owns some of the USA?


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 14, 2009)

WhiteLotus said:


> So technically China owns some of the USA?



Yes if the USA can't pay up.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 14, 2009)

Governments can't own other governments without political control which is usually directly connected to militarist control.  They may own some debt because they are likely to profit from it but in terms of influence, it doesn't get them very far.  The people either have to choose to allow another government to take over or they have to be taken over by force.  It isn't like a corporate takeover where buying up one companies assets, liabilities, and capital results in complete dissolvancy of said company.


The problem back in September 2008 was one leg of the economy collapsing (banking).  The same leg that collapsed on Black Tuesday back in the 1930's.  It wasn't so much to do with public debt as it is with people buying houses they can't afford, foreclosing, and the bank sitting on a worthless assets they can't liquidate.  If banks (especially the bigger, international banks) did better credit checks and were willing to say no to people, it never would have happened.


----------



## troyrae360 (Apr 14, 2009)

surley the American govenment has got to be the most corrupt


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 14, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> surley the American govenment has got to be the most corrupt



Are you trying to be serious?


----------



## v12dock (Apr 14, 2009)

Socialism FTL


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 14, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Surely the American government has got to be the most corrupt



Its not, and stop calling me Shirley


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 14, 2009)

SK-1 said:


> Its not, and stop calling me Shirley



I don't think he has heard what Mexico has been going through in the last 80 years. USA is far from the most corrupt.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 14, 2009)

DaedalusHelios said:


> 1. I meant pornography in modern media because conservative interests fought it for years. There are a tons of examples if you need them.  *Watch it with the insults please*
> 
> 
> 2. If they decided to detain you in a secret prison under false pretenses it would. Also you would have no legal reprecussion under that system so good luck fighting that. Of course you are not islamic so you probably wouldn't care what would happen to them anyway.
> ...



1. What you meant and what you said are two different things. Given this new context Ill agree with you.  You have to admit however without the context you just gave me the statement was dumb 

2. Again I never said the patriot act was a good idea. It was an over the top knee jerk reaction. Obama however hasn't done ANYTHING to restore the rights the Patriot act took away. But he did already have Jordan and Bird over to the White House the first week he was in office. So we went from shooting ducks to shooting hoops. I guess thats "Change". Obama is just another politician except hes spent more money in 100 days than all American wars COMBINED and adjusted for INFLATION. :shadedshu If he really wanted to stimulate the economy he could have given each American a million bucks. But no. We have to make sure big business stays afloat with no penalty and no adjustment to a failed strategy. The good news is now the "people" own in part a bunch of defunct banks. 

3. Say what you will about Bush but he wouldn't be afraid to revoke a bill he didn't believe in. This is one thing I hate about Obama. Hes so concerned with self image he wont do anything really productive.

4. I'm not going to go back and forth with the Republican vs. Democrat debate. But to be clear nether of these parties are what they started out to be. Republican have voted more civil rights bills in than the Democrats. Thats a fact. And a Democrat dropped a nuke on a civilian target. All this is besides the point now. I consider myself a Republican because I believe in brutal capitalism. Other than that I am disgusted with our government. I have been since before Bush.

6. MLK was a good man. Not great but who is. JFK was a bastard. The only reason MLK "shifted" to the Democrats was because JFK threw his support behind him. As for the Dixie-crats they gave us Jimmy Carter. Do I really need to say more? :shadedshu


----------



## SK-1 (Apr 14, 2009)

I wonder if he at least bought the horse dinner.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Oh BTA I'm not referring to the hot topless Indian chicks man. I'm talking about.....



Those sculptures are erotic by today's perspective. I don't mean to say that couples in erotic positions were a common sight then, but that people didn't attach importance to eroticism and sexuality. The builders of the temple then thought they could make something "new age" and ahead of times. People still went there more for the religion, than for a fap-orgy. Those sculptures were mere decoration. Anyway, find out for yourself later this year.




TheMailMan78 said:


> You Indians sure know how to have a good time! With women as hot as yours who could blame ya!



Even if that was sarcasm, you have the our population figures to back that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Those sculptures are erotic by today's perspective. I don't mean to say that couples in erotic positions were a common sight then, but that people didn't attach importance to eroticism and sexuality. The builders of the temple then thought they could make something "new age" and ahead of times. People still went there more for the religion, than for a fap-orgy. Those sculptures were mere decoration. Anyway, find out for yourself later this year.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No way man. I honestly find Indian women VERY attractive. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. It was more of a compliment  Anyway that temple is about the celebration of life is it not? Also what do you mean "Anyway, find out for yourself later this year."


----------



## btarunr (Apr 14, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Also what do you mean "Anyway, find out for yourself later this year."



Aren't you coming over (in a large USPS box) for a Kaziranga excursion? Oh. Just realised it wasn't located in the state this temple is


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Aren't you coming over (in a large USPS box) for a Kaziranga excursion? Oh. Just realised it wasn't located in the state this temple is



 I wasnt sure if thats what you were talking about. Well the plan was to come over sometime this year but I think I might be strapped for cash. I should know in a few months. If so Ill buy ya a Cobra (Beer)


----------



## MohawkAngel (Apr 14, 2009)

I live in Quebec and I have a 56k telephone landline and windows XP firewall...they wont take me alive hahaha!!!!(psychotic laugh) 

just kidding of course


----------



## ChaoticAtmosphere (Apr 14, 2009)

MohawkAngel said:


> I live in Quebec and I have a 56k telephone landline and windows XP firewall...they wont take me alive hahaha!!!!(psychotic laugh)
> 
> just kidding of course



Hey, how's things in Montreal? Gosh, I miss it there. I'll have to setup a visit this summer to go get toasted on a terrasse aux vieux port! 

56k and back to the old BBS's will definitely be the way to go if this ever goes worldwide  but I think it'll be mostly the US cutting itself off from the world as it has almost done under the Bush admin, so not to worry. The department of Homeland security fingerprinted me, took a mugshot and walked me back to the Champlain border a few years back just because I was honest, not because they found any dirt on me in their computers!! Now I have to pay an exorbitant amount of money and send them my itinerary 6 months in advance if I plan to visit. They just lost one tourist. They did the same at the Detroit border a year ago to 2 women who volunteer with a relief org. for hurricane Katrina victims. Detained for 3 hours, printed and mugged because of incomplete paperwork!!


----------

