Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]hotsacoman[/nom]I think we should shut down the internet for one day each and every month so people could go outside and play.[/citation]
COMMENT WIN!
 
You know i hear about this BS and i heard about Obama wants to go through all public computers again its BS all that crap is on sites just like this 1, give me a real NEWS outlet like CNN or ABC NEWS OR SOMETHING THAT IS CREDIBLE not this garbage site or others like this one. It is the Right WINGERS republicans and the Haters of Obama trying to discredited him any way they can. The republicans have been running for the 2012 election b4 Obama got swore in. THey cant stand the thought of not having control of congress and the senate and now the presidency. WELL GET OVER IT YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS PIECES OF CRAP HATERS OF ALL KINDS!!!!
 
I also didn't vote for Bush or Obama. They are like 2 sides of the same coin. Both of which involve stripping you of personal liberties.

Socialism in any form has never worked. Not in Russia, Cuba, Korea, China, or Vietnam. Even in its minor influences that have had harsh effects on Europe, Japan, and now the US as we are going to be indebted for $75 trillion over the next 50 years as the result of Medicare.

I just wish I lived in Maine or West Virginia so I can vote out such officials. They don't represent the peoples best interest.
 
falchard:

You confuse socialism and communism Sweden in example is socialistic and they have one of the best health care systems in the world, the same goes for their education and they are among the top country's when it comes to state debts.

One big difference between most socialistic states and those communistic would be that in communism there is only one "Big Cheese" who rules them all while in a true socialistic state the people or those elected by the people rule the state and the state (doesn't mater if its the president or the congress) has to answer to the people (either a majority or those selected by the people).

In short communism almost always strings down to having a dictator while socialism is just a democracy.
 
[citation][nom]zibby[/nom]Who has control over Senate and Congres - social democrats = communists. If you never lived in country ruled by communists / social democrats take a front row seat and have prime view at what's going on in this country.[/citation]

Have you ever lived in a communist country? If you just heard about it on the news don't talk about it. Whatever you hear, from both sides of the fence, is just propaganda. I wonder why you weren't so up in arms about the Patriot Act... Now that really reminds me of my years in Cuba.
 
[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]Hmmm.......You do realize this man makes the call to go to war with another country right? [/citation]

The President, alone, does not have the power to go to war with another country. A declaration of war comes from congress. Congress has to approve war. You should read our Constitution.

And yes, this is too much power to be given to someone. The internet should remain untouched. It's been untouched to this point and we've coped with every problem thus far.
 
Buyt damn folkes it migth not be obama who will use it...but see Mr. bush and chainy with this kind of power, that is why this must not happen....
 
I offer not my own thoughts but the thoughts of a great american. Lets see what he has to say:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

He that's secure is not safe
The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice.


This one doesn't pertain to the matter at hand but I always liked it best
Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
 
Can't you see that USA is going for CORPORATE FASCISM ? "The bill was introduced by West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller"- ring any bells? What interests this man reprezents? Powerfull families rule the USA and this is one of them. You think republicans are diferent than democtarts - they work for the same masters and only get elected because the other party made a lot of bad decisions for the people while it had the power. Your MEDIA is controled by your CORPORATIONS and soon YOUR PART OF THE INTERNET will be CENSORED.When you have an ideea(a bad ideea in the eyes of CORPORATE) how will you share it? Every prezident of USA is telling that they protect DEMOCRACY but they backed the dictatorship in Latin America. In 1993 G. senior Bush saluted the distruction of the democraticly alected Russian Parliament by their president Boris Yeltsin .Wake-up USA - you do not live in democracy - powerfull clans rule over you !You do not even have your own central bank - it's all corporate backed by goverment !!! You only have the right to pay and get loans ! EDUCATE YOURSELF, investigate - stop living like brainless chimps.

signed by- A guy from Europe
 
We used to rely on Newpapers to keep an eye on the government and inform the populace of what was going on so we could stop the government from infringing on our rights. Then TV news. Somewhere along the route, the vast majority of these two mediums got overstocked with socialist, democrat employees and they do not function so great at informing the population so much as indoctrinating the public into good little people for the government, instead of ensuring the government is good for the individual. The internet gives voice to everyone. This is a threat to the near monopoly they enjoy in the newspapers and the tv news, sans Fox and the Wall Street Journal. Thus, they need to be able to stop the internet from being able to inform the populace of big government grabs at power at the expense of the individual.
 
Anyone else notice that John D. Rockefeller was involved in the introduction of this bill?
It might not mean anything to most people, but I seem to remember the conspiracy theorists pointing him out, as one of the minds behind this so called "New World Order". Which aims to slowly remove the rights of the citizens of this country by passing laws in the name of national security, and the war on terror. Just a thought 😛
 
it's time for the government to fall. Commie bastards. and yes, there goes the first amendment. If they're so damned scared about "attacks" via the internet, then why the hell won't they just shut down their own machines? Doesn't makes sense, so screw em. Each and every business in america has security implemented and can take care of themselves, it's their own responsibility. Unless of course they want to now use the army to take over security guard jobs in banks, malls, etc. dumb shits. i won't stand for this kind of ridiculous behavior. What the hell could they be thinking, they must be drinking from lead cups.
 
Evilshuriken

I've seen some stuff on that. I want to believe it's just a conspiracy theory, but a lot of what's happend over the last 10 years says otherwise. An invisible war with an invisible enemy WE funded. Rights taken away in the name of "security". 9/11 was horrible and nobody wants to see that happen again, but whose design really was it?
 
Remind me again what was so great about our new president. Anyone? The last guy was a dunce who did little for this country, but the new guy? Man... he's taking us down a road that ultimately ends in our destruction.
 
Still so many people not reading the article. The road to destruction was paved.. Long ago.. Sad part is.. Its the people that caused it. Parents whining because they can't control their kids so they want labels on everything, cause they don't have the time to take an interest in what their kids do. Of course that's only one part, but that general theme has been a bad thing from the start.

And yet I think the goverment should be able to fire ceo..etc If we give them freaking bailouts.. Freaking A they should have to answer to us. Its not like we're giving them just a mil here a mil there. We're talking about billions, of tax payer money. If I went and bought that must stock from a company.. I got a feeling I'd get a little pull to.

Although on a personal note.. Should've let all the companies fail. Yes it would've suck, it would've been a diaster.. But in the long wrong the very long run.. America as a whole would be better off.
 
Kingnoobe speaks the truth. We've been heading down a slippery slope for a while now and seem unable to bring ourselves to reverse course. Socialism fails everywhere it goes... and yet we think we'll be different.
 
Very few elite people wants to control the whole world and most of us don't even know about it. Please investigate before we lost our freedom.
 
What bothers me about this article is the title. Rather than saying "Bill Allows PRESIDENT to Shut Down Internet, it purposefully says Obama to catch anyone remotely anti-Obama's attention. Obama apparently has nothing to do with this bill so those of you who thought you had something on him need to get over it. ANd as for the author, I'm not sure if it was your intention to subtly attack Obama or not, but it apparently worked.
 
I love how people trot out the trope:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


You can use this line both to defend going to war against terrorism or not going to war against terrorism.

Pro: The Neville Chamberlain principle - delaying the fight against terrorism to purchase a little bit of time is wrong



Con: compromising on "privacy rights" to get safety from terrorism is wrong.


Either way, it's complete horses*hit. Applied to the fullest, it results in anarchy. You can argue that cops "restrict" your freedom in exchange for a "little bit of safety. "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.