KILL-SWITCH must be given to OBAMA

Another thing about this bill, if someone were to challenge it and see it goes against freedom of speech; yeah right. I know that some people get there computer privileges taken away for committing cyber crimes. The internet is also a privilege! You will all still be able to link together your crazy conspiracies on the streets after the switch has been hit.


Some people think that the Queen should get the switch. Do a-lot of you like the switch and not just Obama having it for whatever reason.

I encourage to do some research and read the article before commenting!!

KILLKillswitchSWITCH

I advise all of you to read the bill. It's under the guise of defense, listed under the ill-named Patriot Act, and is being pushed thru by senator Lieberman. It's designed to further strip away what civil liberties we have left. They can patrol websites, demand any info they want, and regulate hiring of individuals in what they would call "critical" industries, other than government run agencies. It's a couple hundred pages long, but filled with amorphous language that can be interpreted many different ways.

The further stripping away of my civil liberties is not the change I voted for!

Originally posted by Y2Zgt
Another thing about this bill, if someone were to challenge it and see it goes against freedom of speech; yeah right.

Yup, freedom of speech has nothing to do with the internet what-so-ever. The internet is simply a medium which can be used to exercise your freedom of speech. Folks, just because we have freedom of speech, that doesn't imply that anyone or the government must create communication mediums for us to exercise that right upon. Just like driving a car, the internet is a privilege, not a right. To think otherwise would imply someone must give everyone internet access for free. Are those that can't afford a computer or internet access being denied freedom of speech? No.

A lot of people really don't seem to understand what a right is and isn't, and what a privilege is. A right is inalienable and universal. It is not a right if your right imposes a demand upon another to supply you with that right. Health care for example is not a right and should not be a right, because in order to satisfy that right and provide you with that right, doing so places a demand upon another, which takes away their right to freedom. To say health care is a right, someone must be forced or persuaded to be your doctor. Free speech is an inalienable right, because nobody has to provide you a damn thing in order for you to exercise that right. Make any sense? It is not a right if it takes away someone else's freedom in order to provide you with that right.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Divinorumus]

I think an Internet Kill Switch is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.
Talk about a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
This is just another threat from the Federal Terrorists, talk nice or we switch you off.
I think the Internet has become too big to fail if i can use those words.
To kill the Internet would be to destroy whats left of commerce.
It would be an act of tyranny that would trigger revolts worldwide.
Part of me says "go on, do it you sucker and see what happens!!"

I'm pretty sure the Russians, Chinese, British, Indians, and everyone else would have something to say about it if Obama suddenly switched off the internet! And even though the intent is obviously to be able to affect US servers, many websites around the world use US based ISPs.

Last I heard no-one in America has global jurisdiction, even if some Americas think they do.

So, give Obama the killswitch, let him use it and let's see what's left in the smoking ruins of the USA 5 minutes later

This would be like destroying all the roads at once just to make it easier for a small groups of suspected terrorists to move around.

*And since shutting down the internet would be a terrorist's dream come true, what does it say about Obama and his gang who want the power to do what terrorists can only dream of?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

So, give Obama the killswitch, let him use it and let's see what's left in the smoking ruins of the USA 5 minutes later

Good one.

That's what I was trying to say; Terrorist fantasy indeed.



[edit on 19-6-2010 by Exuberant1]

I just looked at the entire bill. It seems it's mainly about setting up a police division in government to patrol the Internet. Starting off with 500 employees. It seems to advocate teaching about cyber issues in schools, named anything from kindergarten on up thru college levels. This part about the bill I don't have much qualms with, however I object at the blatant control it would give the government in other areas, opening up any portal to govt. Inspection on the whim of a cyber police inspector. They also are going to make websites register with the govt., and comply with shutting down sites if the govt. deems it necessary. This whole thing needs to be scrutinized further, and hopefully picked up by the media so that the mass public hears about it. It all smells rather fishy to me, and I'm not drinking the koolaid thanks!

reply to post by Divinorumus

Just like driving a car, the internet is a privilege, not a right.

Yeah, but it isn't a privilege given to us by our Governments, every computer in the world contributes to the internet as a whole. We all own it, and help maintain it. No one entity should posses the power to disable the internet or other forms of communication, based on irrational arguments founded on fear...

[edit on 19/6/10 by CHA0S]

reply to post by Divinorumus

Folks, just because we have freedom of speech, that doesn't imply that anyone or the government must create communication mediums for us to exercise that right upon. Just like driving a car, the internet is a privilege, not a right.

Now compare this statement to this one:

A lot of people really don't seem to understand what a right is and isn't, and what a privilege is. A right is inalienable.

If a right is inalienable, and it is, this means it can not be transferred, which means it can not be granted. Who decided driving was not a right? Did the DMV evolve from the earlier administrative agency known as the DHB, (Department of Horse and Buggies)? How is it possible that people have the right to travel but not to drive? Aren't you the guy who suggested that an internet kill switch could have prevented the oil disaster? Pfffft!

It is not a right if your right imposes a demand upon another to supply you with that right.[

Okay, so I suppose buying food directly from a rancher or farmer, or from a grocer isn't a right either. Pffffft. Aren't you the guy who suggested that in the event of a nuclear war the internet being killed would save us all? Pfffft.

Health care for example is not a right and should not be a right, because in order to satisfy that right and provide you with that right, doing so places a demand upon other, which takes away their right to freedom.

You are so ridiculously brainwashed with Marxist ideology you clearly have no idea how free market principles work. The reason Marxism doesn't work, is that even under a government controlled market, the free market still thrives, and governments call it a black market.

To say health care is a right, someone must be forced or persuaded to be your doctor.

Are you so deluded that you believe doctors chose their profession because they were forced to do so? Health care is a demand, and where there is a demand, prudent opportunist supply that demand as is their right to do so, just as it is the right of others to create a demand. As long as that demand causes no harm to another outside of self defense, or defense of loved ones, and property, it remains an inalienable right. Doctors are not forced to be doctors, and people are not forced to rely on doctors to take care of their own health. Supply and demand are basic principles of any marketplace. In a free market that supply and demand maximizes freedom, in all other market economies freedom and inalienable rights are diminished.

Free speech is an inalienable right, because nobody has to provide you a damn thing in order for you to exercise that right. Make any sense?

No it doesn't! People have the right to a redress of grievances, of which they would never get if a government wasn't provided to offer such redress. People have a right to due process of law, of which they would never get if there wasn't a government provided to offer this due process. People have a right to keep and bare arms which doesn't preclude buying those arms from a supplier. People have a right to the freedom of the press, which means there must be a press provided as a medium in order to enjoy this right.

It is not a right if it takes away someone else's freedom in order to provide you with that right.

While this statement on its own is entirely true, in the context you have placed it, you are advocating Marxism, which is a clear and undeniably diminished rights. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, and a free market allows for all three of these rights to be enjoyed to their fullest.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by CHA0S


I totally agree with what you said about the Internet being of a worldly domain. If we go about regulating it in this fashion it's one step closer to the controls let's say China has over their people, i.e., undemocratic in nature. It frightens me that this is even being considered.

reply to post by Praxilla


If we shut down our servers and such it is not global jurisdiction. They are USA servers. You are so afraid of Uncle Sam it's not even funny. Wake up to the truth and see the world for what it really is. This kill switch may one day save your life. What are you going to think then? "The switch saved me but I won't be able to go post some conspiracy about for a few more days". Give me a break!

"Give Obama The Switch Don't Be A B$tch!

Originally posted by Y2Zgt
reply to post by Praxilla

 

If we shut down our servers and such it is not global jurisdiction. They are USA servers. You are so afraid of Uncle Sam it's not even funny. Wake up to the truth and see the world for what it really is. This kill switch may one day save your life. What are you going to think then? "The switch saved me but I won't be able to go post some conspiracy about for a few more days". Give me a break!

"Give Obama The Switch Don't Be A B$tch!

Just like Janet Reno "saved the children" by throwing the kill switch in Waco. Just like all dictators kill in order to save the people from themselves. Either you are one of the greatest internet satirists who have ever graced the screen, or you are one sick dude. Surely you can't be a paid disinfo agent, if you were, by now your superiors would be shutting you up because you are embarrassing them.

reply to post by Y2Zgt


I don't know how that was a reply to anything I've said. Did you read the bill? If so, what was the last 1/3 of the bill concerned with? I don't think you'll be able to quickly answer that, as i dont think youve read it through. Perez Hilton didnt have much on it on his website, did he?

What I'm advocating iis a closer scrutiny into this legislature in order that a bill with amorphous wording doesn't get passed so that the government can then bend it to whatever whim it desires. That isn't what our democratic government should be about.

I'm not afraid of anyone, but I won't stand by to see my rights stripped away either.

Originally posted by Praxilla
reply to post by Y2Zgt

 

That isn't what our democratic government should be about.

I'm not afraid of anyone, but I won't stand by to see my rights stripped away either.

Okay we live in a republic government not democratic.
www.thisnation.com...


I don't want to see you have your rights stripped away either... the internet is not a right!

"A democracy is 2 reptilians and a human deciding what to eat for dinner"

reply to post by Y2Zgt


The internet is not a right according to who? The beautiful thing about a republic is that it prevents majorities from trampling over the rights of minorities. However, in this instance, I hardly think you will find a majority willing to agree with you that people don't have a right to access the internet. If they can afford the price it would take to ensure they have access, then they have a right to it.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Y2Zgt

"Governments should not prevent people from connecting to the Internet, to websites, or to each other," Clinton said. "The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyber space." - Hiliary Clinton's comments when she was addressing a group of Chinese people in order to try and help break down some fire walls impeding their Internet access.

Goodnight, I'm done with replying to you. But, I will continue to seek out more information on this bill, and I suggest you do the same. Information is knowledge!

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Praxilla]

Removed




[edit on 19-6-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]