Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Thread: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET New

  1. #91
    Advisor Realist1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-27-09 @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    537

    Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by NEUROSPORT View Post
    it doesn't matter Sweetie because the government has already proven itself quite capable at creating emergencies such as 9/11
    I got your back Sport... I saw Bush PERSONALLY fly both of those planes into the W.T.C. And I'm willing to Testify to it.

    You believe me,,,don't you?

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Last Seen
    12-23-09 @ 05:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    616

    Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Realist1 View Post
    I got your back Sport... I saw Bush PERSONALLY fly both of those planes into the W.T.C. And I'm willing to Testify to it.

    You believe me,,,don't you?
    yes i believe you. i believe you because i am stupid. i am stupid because you think i am stupid. you think i am stupid because you are projecting ...

    we all hope your mother loves you
    Last edited by NEUROSPORT; 08-30-09 at 10:09 AM.

  3. #93
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Realist1 View Post
    The Dems better "have a talk" soon with the President....

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


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

    They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.



    The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
    I would think that if there really was a threat then the only thing the government would have to do is have some computer guys disconnect the internet access to government computers that are at risk. This idea of letting the president have control over the whole internet sounds like a scam.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #94
    °Selah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So a bill that lets the president take emergency measures when an emergency happens is sinister how?
    If only people realized how many "emergencies" have been planned so that the government can further regulate the market and our lives.

  5. #95
    Advisor Realist1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-27-09 @ 09:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    537

    Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by NEUROSPORT View Post
    yes i believe you. i believe you because i am stupid. i am stupid because you think i am stupid. you think i am stupid because you are projecting ...

    we all hope your mother loves you
    I'm at a loss for words Sport. I had no idea you'd take my words of encouragement in your personal thoughts on the 911 Govt. Conspiracy, as an affront to your intelligence.

    And after I told you I saw Mr. Bush "Personally flying both planes". I'm shattered.

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

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

    Well considering the Obama administrations diversity czar for the FCC is an anti-free speech Marxist scumbag who just loves what Chavez junta did with its media, I'm going call it like I see it as an overt attempt to end the freedom of the internet, but they're not stopping there they want complete control over all electronic media outlets country wide and the total silence of the opposition:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new "Chief Diversity Officer," communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

    But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."

    Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created "problem."

    * Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
    * Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
    * Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

    These last two get perilously close to the use of "localism" to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time.

    .................................................. ...............................................

    In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter - use the "localism" requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to (very liberal) public broadcasting.

    Or worse - the FCC would rescind these stations' broadcast licenses. In other words, shut them up by shutting them down. Thus, as Lloyd says, no need for the mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine.

    From Lloyd's piece:

    To be fair, even some progressives are confused about the Fairness Doctrine. A recent news story reported that the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC for short, has asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrineóeven as the same article reports on a speech to LULAC by ABC News correspondent John Quinones, who spoke of his work bringing to audiences a hard-earned perspective to the long-running immigration debate.

    Quinones told the LULAC audience that he got his start because a San Antonio community organization threatened that if the stations didn't hire more Latinos, the group would go to the FCC and challenge their licenses. "Thank God for them," Quinones said. "I wouldn't be here."

    Equal opportunity employment policies. Local engagement. License challenges. Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine.

    "Community organizations" (run one would think by community organizers) threatening the licenses of stations with whom they do not agree politically.

    Or making them pay hefty fines, which would be added to the public monies already being given to liberal public broadcasting.

    The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (i.e. Rush Limbaugh fans, meant here by Lloyd to more broadly refer to fans of all conservative talk) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they donít want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.

    New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote Liberal Group's 'Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio' | Newsletters.org

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •