Or did you mean that Sarah (being the most viable GOP candidate for some reason I can't fathom) will eventually have this power if the bill passes? If for some other reason I can't fathom, she's elected...

Yeah, that's kinda scary.

Last edited by sofaking (2009-08-28 12:21:56)

sofaking wrote:

Or did you mean that Sarah (being the most viable GOP candidate for some reason I can't fathom) will eventually have this power if the bill passes? If for some other reason I can't fathom, she's elected...

Yeah, that's kinda scary.

Exactly.  Although I don't think Sarah will ever be elected, someone like Dick Nixon or Dick Cheney certainly could.  Just because people are gaga over Obama doesn't mean we should give the Presidency too much power.  Fact is, I don't trust Obama even a little bit, but then, that's a different matter.

Phreddy...please...stop.  Your refusal to think these things through is hurting my head.

The president has the power to take control of all sorts of public and private enterprises during a state of emergency; more so after Bush pushed out his signing orders.

This has always been a reality, think "emminent domain"; you do however have recourse via the courts to be properly restituted by congress for properties or services commandeered during a time of national emergency.


No body likes this kind of shit, but everyone recognizes that situations might emerge where this kind of shit is necessary for the survival of our nation and our selves.

Sofie wrote:

He's not evil. Or stupid.

Maybe not, but he certainly is conniving and in way over his head.

Emmeran wrote:

Phreddy...please...stop.  Your refusal to think these things through is hurting my head.

The president has the power to take control of all sorts of public and private enterprises during a state of emergency; more so after Bush pushed out his signing orders.

This has always been a reality, think "emminent domain"; you do however have recourse via the courts to be properly restituted by congress for properties or services commandeered during a time of national emergency.


No body likes this kind of shit, but everyone recognizes that situations might emerge where this kind of shit is necessary for the survival of our nation and our selves.

WTF are you talking about?  If he already has the power, then why are the Dems cooking up this legislation?

Because there currently is no specific way to do it, no current definition as to what constitutes a "cyber emergency", no plan as to how it gets implemented, no statutory responsibilities of the service providers in question. After what happened in Georgia and Latvia in the last couple of years, I, as an IT professional, think this is a really good idea.

I mean really, you shouldn't have to be told these things. They are pretty freakin obvious and don't require recourse to the black helicopter theory.

Emmeran wrote:

Phreddy...please...stop.  Your refusal to think these things through is hurting my head.

We have "an old saying" about these parts:  "Never mentally wrestle with a Phred.  The Phred likes it fine enough; But, you only end up feeling dirty."  I don't know.  Some-Thing a-kin to that.

Yeah, but requiring federal licenses approved by the Cyber czar to operate a private network?  I can't believe you would defend that Sofie.

sofaking wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Yeah, but requiring federal licenses approved by the Cyber czar to operate a private network?  I can't believe you would defend that Sofie.

Well, I'm a pragmatist, Phreddy dear.

I'm telling you, if the internets go out, my whole business is fucked. No mo monay.

When it happens, Miss Sofie will blow whoever needs to be blown to get the internets up and running again.

Better to bitch about it now than to spend the time on your knees after it becomes law.

phreddy wrote:

Better to bitch about it now than to spend the time on your knees after it becomes law.

We can't do both then?  Well, your cer-tainly no fun.

sofaking wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Yeah, but requiring federal licenses approved by the Cyber czar to operate a private network?  I can't believe you would defend that Sofie.

You have to have a license to be a trucker, a plumber, an engineer, etc.

Yeah, the FMCSA already has me tonguing sphincter whenever they audit us.

A blowjob for the government is no skin off mah knees.

The government is actually my friend. The regulators help keep morons and unsafe companies off the road, and I don't have to do business with them. It's actually a very beneficial service they perform for the industry.

*tongues some government butthole*

Did I mention I work for the government?  *unbuckles belt and drops trou*

Banjo wrote:

sofaking wrote:

*tongues some government butthole*

Whoooo! That's an awful big butthole. I hope your frenum is stretched properly. The government's butthole makes goatse man look like a 12 year old virgin.

The paperwork and requirements to get a motor carrier and brokerage stretch it out and help ready you for the job of tonguing the massive gaping butthole while you're being audited.

Seriously, though, a world without governmental regulations isn't a world you want to live in. The loosening of federal regulations that the right wingnuts are always bitching about only helps huge businesses. Normal sized ones need the regulations more than the tax break, since regulations help to mitigate the damages that ultimately harm an industry (examples: fishing catch restrictions, environmental regulations, road safety regulations, work safety regulations, minimum wages, etc.).

I'm happy that we're going to start focusing on our own country for awhile. How lame it is that the conservatives started a war to become involved with the governmental processes of another country, when they supposedly believe in limited government involvement. I guess they're for involvement in other people's governments, but fuck everyone here.

Last edited by sofaking (2009-08-28 15:45:23)

orangeplus wrote:

Vote The Humungus
Libertarian Party '12

The "Libertarian Party" is a "Trojan Horse" for the most part.  They love to "sell their-self" as being for in-dividual freedom; But, their primary goal is to allow corporations to run rampant with no over-sight.  < BradPitt > And, I just can't a-bide that. < /BradPitt >  Like it or not, Sofie is correct.  In a Capitalist society such as ours, some government "over-sight" is re-quired.

With oddly ironic timing Bloomberg magazine had an article on Japan Inc this month, the main thrust of the article was how unfair if was of Japanese companies and courts to prohibit pro-active US hedge funds from forcing Japanese companies to pay higher returns to their investors.  It quoted the Japanese 10% unemployment rate as a result.  (for sake of comparison Japan reports actual unemployment rather than just the unemployment filings which we do).

A later article in the same issue lauded the Japanese for strong companies that consistently out perform their competitors while being good corporate citizens and noted that those approaches had netted a trade and budget surplus - actual sovereign wealth.

Japanese society is focused on the good of the many over the success of self, those who fail are required to publically admit their failures and attempt reparations; so while they have government oversight it remains largely unnecessary.

Here the story is the opposite - every time we limit over-sight and enforcement the common people (those who actually create the wealth) get ass-fucked with a 40-grit condom.  The republicans lead the way in these efforts but only by a slim margin; the root of the problem goes far deeper.

We as American's claim to be the best at everything - and we have the numbers to prove it; that is so long as we are the ones compiling the numbers.

This in it's self is the root of the Health Care argument, so many believe that despite of the statics it is always better in America.  While it may be true if you are ultra-wealthy, it is far from the truth for the other 90%.  If you have unlimited resources the USA has the best care available, if you don't.... well you take what you can get after waiting in-line.

Last edited by Emmeran (2009-08-28 20:38:37)

Snowball wrote:

I came home, logged in, saw this topic title and thought Kathaksung had found us.  Imagine my disappointment.

Wake up America.  Obama intend control of internets and to steal phalluses.  New agency appointed to confiscate and redistribute phalluses under new "Net Neutrality" act.

Sorry - I tried.  It's just not the same though, is it?