EMERGENCY POWERS TO SHUT DOWN INTENET ? VERY DANGEROUS

6/27/2010

Here's an article that will curl your hair, Senate
looking to give White House Braod Power to shut
down internet ? Very dangerous idea...

Cheers..Joe

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

It would probaly be a great blessing.

I lived for over 50 years without the internet.

The world might be a better place.

It wouldn't work. The Internet is an anarchy. Servers would move offshore. When the "emergency" was lifted, a lot of jobs would be lost when offshore services decided not to return.

Yet another incident of misinformed bureaucrats trying to use something they don't understand to accrue respect they don't deserve.

Al Stevens wrote:

It wouldn't work. The Internet is an anarchy. Servers would move offshore. When the "emergency" was lifted, a lot of jobs would be lost when offshore services decided not to return.

Yet another incident of misinformed bureaucrats trying to use something they don't understand to accrue respect they don't deserve.

Al,

You've got that right. Anyway, how would they campaign?

They love to scare us.

People can propose anything. When it gets to the voting stage, that's when I take notice.

I guess I've watched too many science fiction doomsday movies. The president always saves the day with executive orders that change everything from what it was before the crisis. I figure that's why he gets the big bucks.

dkchristi wrote:

People can propose anything. When it gets to the voting stage, that's when I take notice.

What voting stage? There was no voting on health care (Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass it so the people can see what's in it"), school loans overhaul, financial overhaul, and the soon-to-come amnesty (Obama's looking into how he can PRECISELY avoid a vote on that).

I don't see where crippling a large part of the internet is so far-fetched.

I wasn't clear. The voting stage is when a proposal reaches the point that members of the committees determine it is ready to present to the Congress or the Senate. These proposals are available for public comment and receive plenty from the lobbyists. If the public doesn't comment, it's their choice. Some people believe they elected representatives to represent their beliefs.

All of the measures that become the law of the land have a long and complex development, review, public comment, write and rewrite, committee and more committees process where input may be provided all along the way. I know, because I have been part of pushing a legislative agenda through the processes, including the "awards" dinners for the lobbyists who work on your side and the politicians that see your point of view. I was an honorary political intern for the National Association of Manufacturers in Washington, D.C. and it was my job to follow bills and report back to the organization. I also reported to state legislatures in other positions I have held.

I find all this simplistic talk about who's railroading who a perfect example of taking a partial fact and carrying it to the extreme. If you all enjoy that kind of stuff, have fun. I would rather deal in reality, not projection.

Reality: When a Congress and Senate have the same majority political party as the president, lots is accomplished because philosophically the work can get done without a lot of wrangling. Whether that's good or bad must be measured over time, not overnight. This country needed an overhaul, and it's getting one.

Doesn't matter. People protested loud and long during the health care voting process, where did it get them? It was shoved down everyone's throats regardless.

It was shoved down no one's throat. Many people wanted health care reform. It passed with a simple majority--just not 60 votes.

I for one am vey grateful for it. I could be cut off, but not now.

I am not going to worry about the internet. What if? what if? what if?
I doubt the internet being cut off would pass.

alice wrote:

It was shoved down no one's throat. Many people wanted health care reform. It passed with a simple majority--just not 60 votes.

Many people didn't want it. And the "majority" were Congresspeople, many of whom didn't want it either, but made sweetheart deals with each other.

Alice, you are the voice of reason in the wilderness - to the point. Thanks. It took you three short sentences to say what I said in too many words. Guess I'm wordy because it's raining - and I have a project I'm having difficulty digging into...

Yes, Alice is generally ssooo right.

Glad you're back, my friend.

Ann

DK and Ann,

Thanks!