[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
This needs to be posted in nearly every thread started by these clowns. Comparing ANYONE to Hitler is pretty lulz.
Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Attila the Hun? Ivan the terrible? Lincoln?
In the context of this thread, lets say what I meant by “anyone” was any American President.[/quote]
Lincoln then?
If the greater good demanded it he was quite capable of ignoring individuals right to breathe.
[quote]orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
This needs to be posted in nearly every thread started by these clowns. Comparing ANYONE to Hitler is pretty lulz.
Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Attila the Hun? Ivan the terrible? Lincoln?
In the context of this thread, lets say what I meant by “anyone” was any American President.
Lincoln then?
If the greater good demanded it he was quite capable of ignoring individuals right to breathe.
[/quote]
Go more in depth, please.
[quote]orion wrote:
Lincoln then?
If the greater good demanded it he was quite capable of ignoring individuals right to breathe.
[/quote]
Uh oh! Be careful saying that around here. That comment offends certain state apologists.
You are correct however.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
This needs to be posted in nearly every thread started by these clowns. Comparing ANYONE to Hitler is pretty lulz.
Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Attila the Hun? Ivan the terrible? Lincoln?
In the context of this thread, lets say what I meant by “anyone” was any American President.
Lincoln then?
If the greater good demanded it he was quite capable of ignoring individuals right to breathe.
Go more in depth, please.[/quote]
I believe he is going to go for the suspension of habeas corpus and maybe the Chicago prison camp.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
ephrem wrote:
This needs to be posted in nearly every thread started by these clowns. Comparing ANYONE to Hitler is pretty lulz.
Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Attila the Hun? Ivan the terrible? Lincoln?
In the context of this thread, lets say what I meant by “anyone” was any American President.
Lincoln then?
If the greater good demanded it he was quite capable of ignoring individuals right to breathe.
Go more in depth, please.
I believe he is going to go for the suspension of habeas corpus and maybe the Chicago prison camp.
[/quote]
And the killing of 600 000 to preserve the UNION.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
JEATON wrote:
Definition of a Fascist- A conservative who is winning an argument.
Amazing insight.
And from a guy with a fake pic of Nikola Tesla as his avatar.[/quote]
And this from a guy with a picture of a small child blowing the brains out of the old AOL guy as his avatar.
What picture should I post in order to be worthy of your intellectual consideration?
It seems to be the “standard operating procedure” for liberals. Someone dare bring up the truth? Draw attention away from his facts. Call into question his intellect, his education, his religious beliefs or any other non sequitur.
If all else fails, label him a fascist. That will handle the problem every time. Once you have deemed someone a fascist, you no longer have to deal with reality. Everyone knows a fascist is beneath open debate. You are now relieved of your responsibility of objective reason. After all, who can be expected to even have a conversation with a fascist.
You now have my full attention. Please, educate this ignorant lout. I will be looking for a suitable avatar replacement as I await your audience.
It occurs to me that I may have read sarcasm into a comment where there was none. If this is the case, I apologize. If not, my comments stand.
I switch avatars regularly. Most are just pictures or people that I find interesting in some way. However, there have been a few occasions where someone would disagree with my post and rather than honestly debate the issue they would conduct some Freudian analysis of my avatar.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
JEATON wrote:
Definition of a Fascist- A conservative who is winning an argument.
Amazing insight.
And from a guy with a fake pic of Nikola Tesla as his avatar.
And this from a guy with a picture of a small child blowing the brains out of the old AOL guy as his avatar.
What picture should I post in order to be worthy of your intellectual consideration?
It seems to be the “standard operating procedure” for liberals. Someone dare bring up the truth? Draw attention away from his facts. Call into question his intellect, his education, his religious beliefs or any other non sequitur.
If all else fails, label him a fascist. That will handle the problem every time. Once you have deemed someone a fascist, you no longer have to deal with reality. Everyone knows a fascist is beneath open debate. You are now relieved of your responsibility of objective reason. After all, who can be expected to even have a conversation with a fascist.
You now have my full attention. Please, educate this ignorant lout. I will be looking for a suitable avatar replacement as I await your audience. [/quote]
LOL! I just reread your post. My mistake.
You obviously haven’t been around too long calling me a liberal. I was just goofin on ya about the avatar. The pic IS a fake double exposure though.
Yes, the picture is a double exposure. Tesla was a man of many contradictions. A genius decades if not centuries before he time, a showman, a eccentric and text book obsessive compulsive, yet he gave us gifts primarily attributed to Edison and Marconi and has ended up not much more than a footnote.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Why does it have nothing to do with cyberterrorism? I think it probably has EVERYTHING to do with that. Why doesn’t someone find out the purpose of the bill?
Frankly man, Obama is not going to take over anything concerning the internet unless there is a safety concern. I’m not sure why you are so afraid about this.[/quote]
First off you do realize we are constantly attacked by cyberterrorism. Now like another poster said it is scary like the patriot act. The problem with this tho is it is far worse. The patriot act has safe gaurds in place so while i disagree with it, its as far as the constitution gives the government power. Some may say it excedes their power and I can see how they would think that. This bill on the other hand has no safe guards and gives the president a kill switch. That is unconstitutional and I will not stand for it. You either follow the constitution or we throw you out.
Some words of wisdom for those who gloss over these warning signs:
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
So my legitimate concern that is on the table know one on the left wants to talk about? Silly things these facts.
Has anyone mentioned cyberterrorism? My guess would be that this bill is proposed in case there is a rampant virus or something. North Korea does a lot of stuff like this actually.
My thought is theirs probably nothing to worry about. Their are worse things to lose than the internet.
Yeah, the internet is only the greatest tool to freedom of speech since the Gutenberg Press. No big loss there.
mike[/quote]
Nail on the head Mike. Not to mention that 95% of all commerce in the U.S. hinges on internet access (banks, railroad, trucking, airlines, etc.) This has nothing to do with who is in office. Absolutely no one should be for this, I don’t care how far right or left you are. The fact that anyone would even think about giving one’s govt this power just baffles me.
Ummâ?¦ Actually Obama Doesnâ??t Want to Take Over The Internet
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Ummâ?¦ Actually Obama Doesnâ??t Want to Take Over The Internet
Umm... Actually Obama Doesn't Want to Take Over The Internet | WIRED [/quote]
From the article:
"Notice all the hedging. He â??mayâ??, â??mayâ??, â??if he finds it necessaryâ??, â??in coordination.â?? And then they payoff? He can â??direct the national responseâ??!
Thatâ??s not giving him any powers that he doesnâ??t already have, and thereâ??s no justification in that language for the hysteria."
Okay really? So you would feel safe because now instead of “can” or “will” they exchanged “may”? You’re going to be the easiest sheep to get to the slaughterhouse. If you give the government power THEY WILL USE IT. It doesn’t matter if the government is socialist, republican, democratic, or despotic. It’d be accurate to say “when he finds it necessary” than “if he finds it necessary”. It may well not be Obama that uses the power, but the power will be used.
mike
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Umm�¢?�¦ Actually Obama Doesn�¢??t Want to Take Over The Internet
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/umm-actually-obama-doesnt-want-to-take-over-the-internet/
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter whether you think he “wants” to or not. This bill gives him the amorphous, broadly interpretable power to “direct the national reponse” to anything he personally declares a “cyber-emergency”. Again, if this were a bill proposed under the Bush administration, the left would be shrieking to beat hell. I’m sure you remember the response when the Bush’s guys used EXISTING federal law to capture phone calls to-and-from suspected terrorists OUTSIDE the US. I’m sure you participated in the hysteria.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
So my legitimate concern that is on the table know one on the left wants to talk about? Silly things these facts.
Has anyone mentioned cyberterrorism? My guess would be that this bill is proposed in case there is a rampant virus or something. North Korea does a lot of stuff like this actually.
My thought is theirs probably nothing to worry about. Their are worse things to lose than the internet.
This bill would give him immediate control over the internet. The ability to take over private sector. This bill has nothing to do with cyberterrorism. How can you act so sheepishly to this?
Why does it have nothing to do with cyberterrorism? I think it probably has EVERYTHING to do with that. Why doesn’t someone find out the purpose of the bill?
Frankly man, Obama is not going to take over anything concerning the internet unless there is a safety concern. I’m not sure why you are so afraid about this.[/quote]
How can you be so nonchalant about this?
What is defined as a safety concern? Im gonna take a wild guess and say the President will have unilateral power to decide. Do you really want that much power in one mans hand?
I’m not sure what century you live in but I would be in deep shit if I couldn’t access the internet. I do all my banking online, pay my bills, keep in contact with people.
You have to remember Obama isn’t going to be the president forever. Do you want any asshole we elect to have this power?
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
So my legitimate concern that is on the table know one on the left wants to talk about? Silly things these facts.
Has anyone mentioned cyberterrorism? My guess would be that this bill is proposed in case there is a rampant virus or something. North Korea does a lot of stuff like this actually.
My thought is theirs probably nothing to worry about. Their are worse things to lose than the internet.
Yeah, the internet is only the greatest tool to freedom of speech since the Gutenberg Press. No big loss there.
mike
Yes, what would we do without internet for several days while a critical issue was being fixed? Umm, I dunno… read a newspaper? Watch t.v.? Shop in a local store that ACTUALLY supports the economy???
[/quote]
Ya all those IT techs aren’t part of the ACTUAL economy.
[quote]Unaware wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
So my legitimate concern that is on the table know one on the left wants to talk about? Silly things these facts.
Has anyone mentioned cyberterrorism? My guess would be that this bill is proposed in case there is a rampant virus or something. North Korea does a lot of stuff like this actually.
My thought is theirs probably nothing to worry about. Their are worse things to lose than the internet.
This bill would give him immediate control over the internet. The ability to take over private sector. This bill has nothing to do with cyberterrorism. How can you act so sheepishly to this?
Why does it have nothing to do with cyberterrorism? I think it probably has EVERYTHING to do with that. Why doesn’t someone find out the purpose of the bill?
Frankly man, Obama is not going to take over anything concerning the internet unless there is a safety concern. I’m not sure why you are so afraid about this.
How can you be so nonchalant about this?
What is defined as a safety concern? Im gonna take a wild guess and say the President will have unilateral power to decide. Do you really want that much power in one mans hand?
I’m not sure what century you live in but I would be in deep shit if I couldn’t access the internet. I do all my banking online, pay my bills, keep in contact with people.
You have to remember Obama isn’t going to be the president forever. Do you want any asshole we elect to have this power?[/quote]
My question is, what would a president have to gain by locking internet usage? Really, is there anything you can realistically think of? So why is this bill a problem?
You said you do your banking online. What if a country like North Korea, that has created computer viruses in the past, made one that transfered your funds to a private account (they already counterfeit our money)? What if they create a virus that starts another economic collapse? If those things happened right now, the u.s. would be spun into a state of chaos.
Because this bill hasn’t been passed, I’m quite confident in our congress to correctly label and identify the purpose and limitations of the bill. To me it’s that simple.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Unaware wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
So my legitimate concern that is on the table know one on the left wants to talk about? Silly things these facts.
Has anyone mentioned cyberterrorism? My guess would be that this bill is proposed in case there is a rampant virus or something. North Korea does a lot of stuff like this actually.
My thought is theirs probably nothing to worry about. Their are worse things to lose than the internet.
This bill would give him immediate control over the internet. The ability to take over private sector. This bill has nothing to do with cyberterrorism. How can you act so sheepishly to this?
Why does it have nothing to do with cyberterrorism? I think it probably has EVERYTHING to do with that. Why doesn’t someone find out the purpose of the bill?
Frankly man, Obama is not going to take over anything concerning the internet unless there is a safety concern. I’m not sure why you are so afraid about this.
How can you be so nonchalant about this?
What is defined as a safety concern? Im gonna take a wild guess and say the President will have unilateral power to decide. Do you really want that much power in one mans hand?
I’m not sure what century you live in but I would be in deep shit if I couldn’t access the internet. I do all my banking online, pay my bills, keep in contact with people.
You have to remember Obama isn’t going to be the president forever. Do you want any asshole we elect to have this power?
My question is, what would a president have to gain by locking internet usage? Really, is there anything you can realistically think of? So why is this bill a problem?
You said you do your banking online. What if a country like North Korea, that has created computer viruses in the past, made one that transfered your funds to a private account (they already counterfeit our money)? What if they create a virus that starts another economic collapse? If those things happened right now, the u.s. would be spun into a state of chaos.
Because this bill hasn’t been passed, I’m quite confident in our congress to correctly label and identify the purpose and limitations of the bill. To me it’s that simple.[/quote]
You cannot be serious. Why would a president want to limit access to information he doesn’t control? Why could he possibly want to limit access to people’s financial assets? Ya you’re right I can’t think of any reason to do that.
Regardless of the intentions of the bill, its an awful lot of power to put in one mans hand, with no oversight.
Where does your misguided trust in government come from?
[quote]Unaware wrote:
<<< Where does your misguided trust in government come from?[/quote]
I find myself asking this question quite a bit.