• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Better to error on the side of caution when it comes to things like this.

Funny you guys didn't err on the side of caution with the Patriot Act. That has the potential to be misused as well, but then that was under Bush so you guys didn't care about that.

I am against this bill simply because it is the responsibility of the ISPs to police their own structures and determine if they need to be shut down in an emergency. A bill that regulates specific government internet connections would be fine, but I don't the president should have sole authority to take control of the internet.
 
Funny you guys didn't err on the side of caution with the Patriot Act. That has the potential to be misused as well, but then that was under Bush so you guys didn't care about that.

That's because the Patriot Act only allowed FBI to listen in on a few foreign phone calls, during a time of war. Nowhere did it allow the White House to shut down communications nationwide.
 
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 Doctrine—even 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 don’t 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' | NewsBusters.org
 
Link
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

In much the same way Chavez of Venezuela is also steadily chipping away at the foundations of Democracy in that country.

Goebbels of Germany aided the Nazi regime by seizing the media outlets.

Lenin did likewise within Russia.

Putin is doing the same in post Soviet Russia.

Every time some group (usually Left wingers) seek to promote their ideology to the exclusion of any other ideology, they seek to suppress free discussion.

Control the Media you control the Country.

Yup, you just convinced me, that Colored guy he be a Communist Nazi Socialist Homosexual Democrat ...
 
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:

Well of course he appointed an " anti-free speech Marxist scumbag " after all Black Russian is the drink of choice in the Belo House these days !!
 
Dont worry im sure its for your own good.:roll:
 
Well of course he appointed an " anti-free speech Marxist scumbag " after all Black Russian is the drink of choice in the Belo House these days !!

Well Lloyd certainly supports what the Chavez junta did with its media:



"In Venezuela, with Chavez, really a incredible revolution. A dramatic revolution. To begin to put into place saying that we’re going to have impact on the people of Venezuela.

The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media rebelled, work frankly with folks here in the US government, worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution and Chavez started to take the media very seriously in this country."
 
Seems fishy to me something coming out of the legislature which further increases the power of the executive branch. Just saying...

It also seems to me that this should be an amendment to the regulations already available over other media such as telephones and broadcast media. Now if they want to put an agency in place they should put it in Homeland Security somewhere or the FCC, not the whitehouse. Also, the president should not be able to do this unilaterally. A group of people from different branches should be required to recommend that it be done. It should never be in one person.

Also, this really makes me uneasy right now because all those posts about the communications czar are absolute correct and he is in fact trying to use draconian measures to shut down free speech in America, just like Chavez and Hitler. Not the kind of change anyone had in mind!
 
Here. I will answer your questions for you, since you are to lazy to look up the legislation...

Cyber Security Act of 2009.

Quick being so "scared" and dismissive of facts before you make assumptions. Educate yourself.

Also, see if Marshall Law meets any of your prerequisites, or emergency take over of television, or emergency takeover of radio, highways, etc.


This is a Homeland Security matter that should be strongly considered. If you want to protect the government's network infrastructure anyway.

Marshall Law? What does an Australian TV show that aired for one season in 2002, starring Lisa McCune and Alison Whyte as lawyers and sisters have to do with politics?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Law]Marshall Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

I believe the word you were looking for is "martial." :doh

I'm sure you defended the Patriot Act this vigorously also, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom