TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › More Government Control??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More Government Control??

post #1 of 37
6/16/10 at 6:54pm
Thread Starter 
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill...n-the-internet.

Read about Joe Lieberman's push to get this bill passed.
Reply
post #2 of 37
6/17/10 at 4:41am
Well, why not own the Internet? Obama owns everything else. I am waiting to hear he is taking over BP.

I would expect it from this administration.
Reply
post #3 of 37
6/17/10 at 6:03am
I guess some of you are not happy that Bush was able to shut down air space after 911 too huh? Darn those executive powers!
Reply
post #4 of 37
6/17/10 at 6:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I guess some of you are not happy that Bush was able to shut down air space after 911 too huh? Darn those executive powers!
Some nuts had just flown planes into the Twin Towers. Air space needed to be shut down. What in the world does this have to do with a bill to control the internet.

If you comment is supposed to get the attention off Barack, it won't work. People are becoming more and more critical of him. I am so amazed that no matter what that bunch in Washington does or tries to do it is still George Bush's fault. I for one miss him and wish he was still there. I didn't agree with everything he said and did, but at least he knew how to be a leader.
Reply
post #5 of 37
6/17/10 at 6:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Some nuts had just flown planes into the Twin Towers. Air space needed to be shut down. What in the world does this have to do with a bill to control the internet.

I am so amazed that no matter what that bunch in Washington does or tries to do it is still George Bush's fault. I for one miss him and wish he was still there. I did't agree with everything he said and did, but at least he knew how to be a leader.
So, someone hacking via internet into vital computer systems, such as putting commuter trains headed in opposite directions on the same track, shutting down pumps in under-river tunnels, messing with GPS input to military aircraft, etc, doesn't strike you in the same sense of urgency? Uh, ok.
Reply
post #6 of 37
6/17/10 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Some nuts had just flown planes into the Twin Towers. Air space needed to be shut down. What in the world does this have to do with a bill to control the internet.

If you comment is supposed to get the attention off Barack, it won't work. People are becoming more and more critical of him. I am so amazed that no matter what that bunch in Washington does or tries to do it is still George Bush's fault. I for one miss him and wish he was still there. I didn't agree with everything he said and did, but at least he knew how to be a leader.
Please don't misinterpret my comment with the gross oversimplification about something being "George Bush' fault." You clearly did not understand my comment so I'll try to explain it in simple terms:
Either you accept that a president has authority over vital infrastructures or you don't. Telecommunications are as vital if not more so than airspace nowadays.
Reply
post #7 of 37
6/17/10 at 9:16am
I'd like to point out that Lieberman has been proposing this bill for many years and he is not a democrat. Why would you assume that this is a move for Obama to take over the internet? I simply don't get that point.

Working for a telecommunications company for many years, I got familiar with some of the homeland security regulations around the U.S. networks. These controls were implemented after 9/11 and during the Bush administration. For example, regulations do not allow for any foreign owned company to monitor or control part of the U.S. telephone (including internet) networks without going through strict firewalls. This applies to third party vendors or consultant firms that operate outside of the U.S. If this country doesn't have regulation over those companies, the fear is that they could be hacked by terrorists and our network compromised. You don't want to hear about the huge loop holes in these regulations. If Lieberman has a clue about it, then his proposal makes sense.

Lieberman's proposal simply takes these regulations to a new level, and IMO, aren't any different than having the ability to shut down air space during a terrorist attack.
Reply
post #8 of 37
6/18/10 at 9:17am
I find it interesting as an outsider (Canadian) that pretty much any decision being made by the US government these days must be because Obama is trying to take over the world and Bush is being maligned, even if his name isn't even mentioned.
Reply
post #9 of 37
6/18/10 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
I'd like to point out that Lieberman has been proposing this bill for many years and he is not a democrat.
I just wanted to corrected an error here. Joe Liberman IS a Democrat and HAS BEEN a Democrat for DECADES.

But he committed the ultimate sin by endorsing his friend JOhn McCain for President in 2008 and for that mortal sin he had to be punished by the ultimate authority on planet Earth, the Democratic hierarchy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

Quote:
During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman has been officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat"[2] and sits as part of the Senate Democratic Caucus. But since his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for president, Lieberman no longer attends Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches.[3] On November 5, 2008, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his future role with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats.[4]

Lieberman remains a registered Democrat.[5] He was one of the Senate's strongest advocates for continued prosecution of the war in Iraq. He is also an outspoken supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. On domestic issues, he strongly supports free trade economics while reliably voting for pro-trade union legislation. He has also opposed filibustering Republican judicial appointments. With Lynne Cheney and others, Lieberman co-founded American Council of Trustees and Alumni in 1995
It is always good to have all the actual facts.
Reply
post #10 of 37
6/18/10 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I find it interesting as an outsider (Canadian) that pretty much any decision being made by the US government these days must be because Obama is trying to take over the world and Bush is being maligned, even if his name isn't even mentioned.
It is called, "selective vision" Linda.

Bush and Cheney are being blamed for the oil spill and every other happenstance in America. I reckon it will be like that for the next century or so.
Reply
post #11 of 37
6/18/10 at 10:19am
For the record I do not think Barack is trying to take over the world, I think he is trying to collapse our capitalist economy, I fully believe that Barack is totally against Capitalism.
Reply
post #12 of 37
6/18/10 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It is always good to have all the actual facts.[/color]
I wonder what kind of fact isn't "actual?"
Reply
post #13 of 37
6/18/10 at 2:32pm
Lieberman is no democrat. I don't care what Wikipedia says about him. He walked away from the party many years ago.
Reply
post #14 of 37
6/18/10 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It is called, "selective vision" Linda.

Bush and Cheney are being blamed for the oil spill and every other happenstance in America. I reckon it will be like that for the next century or so.
Bush filled the MMS with his cronies who were kissing cousins with the oil industry. There was no little or no oversight of the industry (literally getting sexual favors from them). Instead of getting rid of regulations, the Bush administration just didn't enforce them. He may not be solely responsible for it all, but he did create an environment that encouraged what happened. It is hard to blame Obama entirely for a situation that took years of planning to occur.

Obama and Salazar's sins are that they didn't throw the whole lot out quickly enough.
Reply
post #15 of 37
6/18/10 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
Lieberman is no democrat. I don't care what Wikipedia says about him. He walked away from the party many years ago.
Sorry, you are wrong, I can post MORE proof if you like. Just because YOU say different doesn't make it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Bush filled the MMS with his cronies who were kissing cousins with the oil industry. There was no little or no oversight of the industry (literally getting sexual favors from them). Instead of getting rid of regulations, the Bush administration just didn't enforce them. He may not be solely responsible for it all, but he did create an environment that encouraged what happened. It is hard to blame Obama entirely for a situation that took years of planning to occur.

Obama and Salazar's sins are that they didn't throw the whole lot out quickly enough.
It is hard for some people to blame Obama for anything but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Fact of the matter is, Barack made MMS a campaign issue and promised to make it a priority. He did make a few minor changes. Just another broken campaign promise, one of many. But no biggie, according to a few people on this site (I remember some saying), ALL politicians lie while campaigning.

Let us not forget who got the LION's share of campaign money in 2008. (His initials are BHO)

Are those campaign donations, huge as they were, the reason why MMS got a pass and BP was going to get an AWARD.
Reply
post #16 of 37
6/18/10 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Sorry, you are wrong, I can post MORE proof if you like. Just because YOU say different doesn't make it so.



It is hard for some people to blame Obama for anything but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Fact of the matter is, Barack made MMS a campaign issue and promised to make it a priority. He did make a few minor changes. Just another broken campaign promise, one of many. But no biggie, according to a few people on this site (I remember some saying), ALL politicians lie while campaigning.

Let us not forget who got the LION's share of campaign money in 2008. (His initials are BHO)

Are those campaign donations, huge as they were, the reason why MMS got a pass and BP was going to get an AWARD.
I didn't excuse Obama, but you are wrong to say that Bush is blameless.

Edit to add:
And under ‘Special Interests, Oil & Gas, Money to Congress, 1990-2019, Top 20 Members’ (but these numbers do not include ANY PAC’s or Joint Fundraising Committees):

McCain, John (R-AZ) $2,677,064
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX) $2,137,225
Gramm, Phil (R-TX) $1,682,814
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $1,638,450
Barton, Joe (R-TX) $1,447,880
Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $1,228,223
Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $981,272
Young, Don (R-AK) $980,263
Obama, Barack (D) $973,051
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $860,261
Nickles, Don (R-OK) $841,388
Vitter, David (R-LA) $783,835
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $757,744
Reply
post #17 of 37
6/18/10 at 8:39pm
So you take some dude named TRUTHFAIRY word who is posting in the comments section and post his numbers? Come on, you can do better than that. That is flipping embarrassing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
Quote:

While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.


BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.


On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.


During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0rGaxKCEG
Reply
post #18 of 37
6/19/10 at 5:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So you take some dude named TRUTHFAIRY word who is posting in the comments section and post his numbers? Come on, you can do better than that. That is flipping embarrassing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
Ok, being insulting isn't helping your point - my point is that McCain isn't neglected by the oil and gas company. I may not have selected the right link. http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainoil.

And you are avoiding the point that I made. Bush set up a lax regulatory system and is not blameless. You can scream all you want that Obama is totally at fault and beholden to the oil company, but most of congress is seeping in oil money. That is why the Republicans are fighting all attempts to raise the liability limits for something like this.
Reply
post #19 of 37
6/19/10 at 6:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
That is why the Republicans are fighting all attempts to raise the liability limits for something like this.
...AND why apologies were made to BP for being the victims of a supposed "shake down" by the Government.

Rep. Barton apologizes to BP for Obama 'shakedown'

Aren't these the same people that claim apologies are a bad thing? This appears to be a bit of "Big Oil Bias" right out in the open.
Reply
post #20 of 37
6/19/10 at 7:20am
When you post numbers from a guy named "Truthfairy" you have to know you will be called on it.

FTR, those Democrats in Congress grilling BP were grandstanding, it was nothing but grandstanding.
Reply
post #21 of 37
6/19/10 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Ok, being insulting isn't helping your point - my point is that McCain isn't neglected by the oil and gas company. I may not have selected the right link. http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainoil.

And you are avoiding the point that I made. Bush set up a lax regulatory system and is not blameless. You can scream all you want that Obama is totally at fault and beholden to the oil company, but most of congress is seeping in oil money. That is why the Republicans are fighting all attempts to raise the liability limits for something like this.
When I go to that site and put in "obamaoil" this is what comes up:
http://www.campaignmoney.org/obamaoil
Quote:
We're sorry, you are looking for something that seems to have moved.
Hmmmmmm.
Reply
post #22 of 37
6/19/10 at 7:33am
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...oil_spill.html

BP seems to be an equal opportunity contributor, to Obama, McCain and Hillary.

All in Congress have caved to the Oil companies.
Reply
post #23 of 37
6/21/10 at 8:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
When I go to that site and put in "obamaoil" this is what comes up:
http://www.campaignmoney.org/obamaoil
Quote:
We're sorry, you are looking for something that seems to have moved.
Hmmmmmm.
You typed in a non-existent URL and got the standard error page for that domain.
That rates a "Hmmmmm.?"
Reply
post #24 of 37
6/21/10 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
You typed in a non-existent URL and got the standard error page for that domain.
That rates a "Hmmmmm.?"
Why doesn't it say, "does not exist, rather than "has been moved". Yes, hmmmmmm

And why would the site have a "McCainoil" and NOT an "Obamaoil." Hmmmmm
Reply
post #25 of 37
6/21/10 at 10:35am
Because when you set up an error page you don't have the option of figuring out whether the page exists and has been moved and creating a custom page for that or whether the page never existed in the first place. All the browser can detect is that there is no URL with that name at that location. Until or unless someone develops server side software that hunts for web pages based on URLs only (don't think that's gonna happen soon), you are stuck with one one-size-fits-all error page.
Try typing in "porkypigoil" and see what happens.
Reply
post #26 of 37
6/23/10 at 10:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Some nuts had just flown planes into the Twin Towers. Air space needed to be shut down. What in the world does this have to do with a bill to control the internet.

If you comment is supposed to get the attention off Barack, it won't work. People are becoming more and more critical of him. I am so amazed that no matter what that bunch in Washington does or tries to do it is still George Bush's fault. I for one miss him and wish he was still there. I didn't agree with everything he said and did, but at least he knew how to be a leader.
If you call smirking, thumping his chest, and alienating the rest of the world being a leader, I guess so. I'm not happy with a lot of the things Obama is doing, but I'll take him over George any day.
Reply
post #27 of 37
6/23/10 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
If you call smirking, thumping his chest, and alienating the rest of the world being a leader, I guess so. I'm not happy with a lot of the things Obama is doing, but I'll take him over George any day.
Yeah, I don't know where Bush got off doing all that after 9-11. He should have just waved the white flag to the terrorists who killed 2800 Americans and gone on a world wide "Apology" Tour.
Reply
post #28 of 37
6/23/10 at 6:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
If you call smirking, thumping his chest, and alienating the rest of the world being a leader, I guess so. I'm not happy with a lot of the things Obama is doing, but I'll take him over George any day.

That's scary
Reply
post #29 of 37
6/23/10 at 10:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty8723 View Post
If you call smirking, thumping his chest, and alienating the rest of the world being a leader, I guess so. I'm not happy with a lot of the things Obama is doing, but I'll take him over George any day.
Just to put it in perspective, George Bush was very popular and considered a moderate and good at working between the parties in Texas. Something in the air in Washington makes the press there criticize everyone, and they will tear down the good that a man will try to do just because they disagree with the letter after his name (R or D).

I suspect history will treat W more kindly than many today suspect, and it may not be so kind to Obama as many today believe. Just as examples, take a look at how Truman and Carter were seen at the end of their terms, and how the two of them are seen now in the context of history.
Reply
post #30 of 37
6/24/10 at 9:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Ok, being insulting isn't helping your point - my point is that McCain isn't neglected by the oil and gas company. I may not have selected the right link. http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainoil.

And you are avoiding the point that I made. Bush set up a lax regulatory system and is not blameless. You can scream all you want that Obama is totally at fault and beholden to the oil company, but most of congress is seeping in oil money. That is why the Republicans are fighting all attempts to raise the liability limits for something like this.
I agree with you. There will probably never be a politician or an elected official that pleases me 100%. Bush was beholden to the oil industry, no doubt about it. I'm sure that relationship colored his thinking in that regard. It probably was under his watch and under his appointees that BP was allowed to get away with 793 safety violations. But Obama's lack of leadership in every category is unparalleled in history!

Again, why hasn't there been a summit conference with oil experts throughout the world to brainstorm on solving this leak? I heard that Russia has had 3 or 4 similar leaks, and they detonated a bomb in each case to seal the leak. Has anyone with an inside ear to Obama talked to the Russian experts? Doubtful, or we would have heard about it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › More Government Control??