Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 6, 2009 11:52:48 PM

Barrack does not have the rectitude necessary to make important decisions that effect people's lives. Besides that He has poor judgement.
Score
1
April 7, 2009 12:02:46 AM

But what exactly would he ever want to close down?
Score
1
Related resources
April 7, 2009 12:17:56 AM

Barrack does not care about Internet users!!!
Score
9
April 7, 2009 12:25:59 AM

herculesBut what exactly would he ever want to close down?

It's a conspiracy! The RIAA,etc are paying him to do it! :lol: 
Score
10
April 7, 2009 12:26:57 AM

Communism (Marxism Leninism Obamanism) is coming.
Score
10
April 7, 2009 12:27:30 AM

That's the kind of power that only the RIAA, MPAA, or BSA should have. :p 
Score
8
April 7, 2009 12:36:16 AM

LOL

Score
-11
April 7, 2009 12:40:42 AM

congress doesnt even use the internet, unless making their minions send hateful mail. They dont know how the "internets" affect people lives.
Score
10
Anonymous
April 7, 2009 12:42:35 AM

so much for the first amendment
Score
26
April 7, 2009 12:44:03 AM

i wonder how many WoW users would b outraged if this should actually happen
Score
20
April 7, 2009 12:45:41 AM

And here comes communism in the guise of national security. Security from whom? Perhaps from Americans?
Score
17
April 7, 2009 12:47:33 AM

If i was CEO of Verizon (or any internet provider) and the government told me to shut it down, id have a simple and fast response of "F_uck you, ill run my business the way i want to and it'll be a cold day in hell before i let you screw it up".
Score
25
April 7, 2009 12:53:32 AM

I'll just put it this way. If a bill like this had been passed under Bill Clinton and then Bush used it when he got into power would you regret it? Hey, a Republican will unfortunately get into office again eventually, and worst case it's the Alaskan soccer mom. Honestly I'm not as worried about Obama using this power as those whom may come after him. That is why Presidential power must be limited in the first place.
Score
-11
April 7, 2009 12:54:43 AM

This is way to much power for one man to be given. First he's requesting CEO's resign in the auto industry. Granted they should because they have manged the companies poorly. Now we want to grant him power to turn off the Internet correct me if I'm wrong but I think I pay for my Internet access not the President of the United States or other taxpayers. We are starting to move closer to a dictatorship if we continue to allow this to go on!!!!!
Score
25
April 7, 2009 12:57:20 AM

Our economy would crumble if the internet is turned off. First off, stock trading is done 99.99% online now, even from brokers, so there went that.....nevermind the massive amount of revenue that moves around at online sites (newegg alone does over 1 billion dollars a year). And of course, this is ignoring the flagrant disregard for the first ammendment. If people dont want to get attacked online, unplug your computer from the internet, it is NOT required for computer operation, it is voluntary. We dont need the government to wipe your ass either do we?
Score
24
April 7, 2009 1:06:34 AM

There is no single point where you could shut down Internet
Score
12
April 7, 2009 1:18:14 AM

guess someone may actually beat the internet. and the last guy will be the US political system? i always thought it would be something cool. like a dragon or something...
Score
8
April 7, 2009 1:25:35 AM

megamanx00I'll just put it this way. If a bill like this had been passed under Bill Clinton and then Bush used it when he got into power would you regret it?


LOL. The irony is that Hillary was the first to say "can't we ban the Internet news?" when Clinton's affair and sperm stain spread like wildfire before the printed/TV media could do anything about it ;-)
Score
9
April 7, 2009 1:32:13 AM

Hmmm....

basedvThis is way to much power for one man to be given.


...You do realize this man makes the call to go to war with another country right? Seems a little bit more power than "shutting down the internet".

Guys, what in the world are you getting huffed up about. No where does it say "President Obama is planning to shut down the internet". Communism, dictatorship, can we say "holy over-reaction Batman"! This is a security move and nothing more for the moment. To technically "shut down" the 'net would require a lot more resources that the US has (given that is called the internet, not the USnet). The talks seem to stem from the Conficker paranoia. Their mode of think is that virus are becoming more, for lack of a better word, refined. Really think that any American business would allow the 'net to go down. Imagine if you could no longer buy anything online. In comes recession number 2. Imagine if the retailers could no longer advertise online. You think the auto industry in Detroit was fragile, wait to you can't buy anything from California online....

I just love how people are attacking Obama and HE DIDN'T EVEN COME UP WITH THE FREAKING BILL! It was just that a bill from the Senate. Not even voted on yet. A proposal...yet Obama is the boogeyman who is going to take your precious toys...oh my. The guy has been in office 3 MONTHS and yet, let some people tell it, you'd think he's been in office the last 8 years (who was the guy by the way?). Got love opinions though....
Score
1
April 7, 2009 1:40:51 AM

red_star_77There is no single point where you could shut down Internet

No but there are a few key ones. Cut the international pipes and only national traffic stays up. Force the ISPs to shut down their systems and your whole country is screwed. An easier option is to simply disable all DNS, although that won't stop everyone, just most people.

Makes me glad to be in Australia where we will only get the Internet filtered :lol: 
Score
6
April 7, 2009 1:42:41 AM

He can only block American severs cant he? stuff that end in .us? or am i mistaken? I cant see how he can block an Australian server that is hosted and run in Australia
Score
0
April 7, 2009 1:44:05 AM

Ah red_star answerd my question Cheers!
Score
0
April 7, 2009 1:44:28 AM

April 1st?
Certain the guy who proposed the bill isn't just a pathetic joker?
Score
1
April 7, 2009 1:46:05 AM

rdawiseThe guy has been in office 3 MONTHS and yet, let some people tell it, you'd think he's been in office the last 8 years (who was the guy by the way?). Got love opinions though....

You know it's easy to blame high-profile politicians for everything. Politicians are usually at fault, but it's often the ones who's names nobody knows. So everyone goes for the head of the pack.
Score
6
April 7, 2009 1:49:08 AM

First move declare state of emergency and enact war powers act. Shut down net and media. Soldiers on the streets. Declare yourself Americas president for life.
Score
6
April 7, 2009 1:49:44 AM

I love some of the comments around here. "What's this, 'Obama something something?' I smell... COMMUNISM!"
Score
7
April 7, 2009 1:57:04 AM

i always thought obama was going to be good. seeing this now, he could possibly be a corrupt leader and take this country down. this is way to much power for 1 man. Who says he has the right to turn off my internet.
Score
0
April 7, 2009 2:07:30 AM

I was afraid I would be the only logical thinker here. Thank you WheelsofConfusion and randomizer. Wheels put it best
WheelsOfConfusionI love some of the comments around here. "What's this, 'Obama something something?' I smell... COMMUNISM!"


Don't believe me, look

outacontrolpimpi always thought obama was going to be good. seeing this now, he could possibly be a corrupt leader and take this country down. this is way to much power for 1 man. Who says he has the right to turn off my internet.


...Yet this isn't a bill proposed by Obama, it was proposed by 2 Senate members. DO you guys see Obama and just flip or what?

m3kt3kFirst move declare state of emergency and enact war powers act. Shut down net and media. Soldiers on the streets. Declare yourself Americas president for life.


...Yet he has done no such thing...wow.

zibbyCommunism (Marxism Leninism Obamanism) is coming.

Yeah, shall I go on?

Read the article people, THIS ISN'T PROPOSED BY OBAMA.

OMFG...I bet if this was a CPU or a Graphics card article you guys would have noticed some details.
Score
4
April 7, 2009 2:10:57 AM

I apologize for posting so much, but this is just really bothering me, I mean the article mentions Obama once in the first paragraph thats it. How in the world are you guys getting communist over that. Is the Senate and Congress aiming to control the 'net...yes they are. But instead you guys focus on Obama.....
Score
3
April 7, 2009 2:14:38 AM

thepinkpantheri wonder how many WoW users would b outraged if this should actually happen

Oh GOD! Think of the children (13 year olds).
I really don't think this is right. Unless there was something REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad, he shouldn't have the right. (Plus, he'd probably use it to make me lag in TF2 so I couldn't headshot him >
Score
-3
April 7, 2009 2:14:40 AM

rdawiseI apologize for posting so much, but this is just really bothering me, I mean the article mentions Obama once in the first paragraph thats it. How in the world are you guys getting communist over that. Is the Senate and Congress aiming to control the 'net...yes they are. But instead you guys focus on Obama.....


Obama is behind the wheels
Score
-2
April 7, 2009 2:17:21 AM

I'm amazed nobody has brought up that, even if Congress passes a bill to the contrary, the President still has no right to wield that power. A Congressional bill doesn't create constitutional power out of thin air, nor does it have any moral legitimacy. Whether Obama "cares about Internet users," or has good or bad judgement is entirely beside the point - they have no right to take control of a huge network of privately-owned hardware and software regardless of how loudly they scream about security.
Score
3
April 7, 2009 2:19:56 AM

rdawiseI apologize for posting so much, but this is just really bothering me, I mean the article mentions Obama once in the first paragraph thats it. How in the world are you guys getting communist over that. Is the Senate and Congress aiming to control the 'net...yes they are. But instead you guys focus on Obama.....


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.
Score
4
April 7, 2009 2:27:12 AM

This is just pure bullshit. This would go against many rights that we have including freedom of speech and press. In what case would it ever be deemed necessary to shutdown the entire internet for the United States?
Score
2
Anonymous
April 7, 2009 2:33:21 AM

Its too limit free speech. That is all this bill is about. It gives the goverment control over "controversial" content and allows them to threaten ISPs. The scope of power the government and the President have given themselves is amazing.
Score
4
April 7, 2009 2:34:27 AM

rdawiseHmmm....
...You do realize this man makes the call to go to war with another country right? Seems a little bit more power than "shutting down the internet".

This is actually incorrect. Constitutionally speaking, the President does not have the authority to declare war on another country. He is permitted to ask Congress, and it is Congress alone that holds the power to formally declare war on another country. In recent years, the practice of actually obeying the law has gone out of style in Washington, which accounts for the fact that, despite the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Shield/Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq II, etc, the last time the United States officially declared war was WWII. Nice to know that our soldiers can be sent to die on the whim of one man instead of the entire Congress, no matter what those pesky laws say.

What amazes me about this bill is that nobody has mentioned that, regardless of whether Congress passes a bill to teh contrary, the President still has no right to assume such a power. A Congressional bill does not create Constitutional authority out of thin air, nor does it have anything to do with what is morally right. The government does not, no matter how much the press likes the President, have the right to take control over a huge privately-owned network of hardware and software, no matter how loudly they shout that it's for "security," "the common good," "the children," whatever. Any society where such abuse of power and disrespect of property rights is tolerated has degenerated to that where the government owns everything and the people nothing, in spite of all the hollow rhetoric about "freedom," and "liberty."
Score
4
Anonymous
April 7, 2009 2:35:40 AM

Here's a thought, the U.S. is becoming the New China!
Score
3
April 7, 2009 2:38:51 AM

The__OneHere's a thought, the U.S. is becoming the New China!


United Soviet States of America
Score
3
April 7, 2009 2:49:15 AM

Internet is providing truthful informations rather than the media. Some people are working to provide those truthful informations thru the internet only so i think media is controlled by the elite people so if the internet is shutdown, they can give us false informations again thru the media.
Score
3
April 7, 2009 2:52:06 AM

i thought their were intelligent people here, as the dude said, this is not obamas idea, he didnt propose it. And yes i have lived in a dictatorship, Pakistan (back when we had the good ole president pervez Mursariff.) The only thing stopping the dictator is the people. i mean scaring them into believing they need protection is a irresponsible thing Obama can do, not a responsible thing Bush did, cause hes responsible. But i do believe this bailout is a bad idea, let them fail. Start all over with a little weaker US economy it will still topple anything else. Its not communism its a temporary solution.
Score
-2
April 7, 2009 2:58:12 AM

And here every insano was screaming about Bush becoming Emperor in chief. Boy, what a wrong guess. Turns out it's the "enlightened, elitist, liberal, turd" who's doing power grabs. But that's ok with the left-wing socialists cause he's their kind of guy.
Score
4
April 7, 2009 3:15:21 AM

zibbyObama is behind the wheels

What are you insinuating about me???


But seriously, can someone please tell me how this is supposed to be "OMG COMMUNISM!"?
Score
-2
Anonymous
April 7, 2009 3:17:38 AM

"Barrack does not have the rectitude necessary to make important decisions that effect people's lives. Besides that He has poor judgement."
I know what you mean, had he taken is Q's from the other party he would have won and his party would have a majority in the... wait nm

I see the purpose behind this for national security. I also keep in mind that every meaningful step towards security is one away from freedom... in this case though I see it as good.
Score
-4
April 7, 2009 3:24:22 AM

At what point do you pro big government liberal morons wake up? I guess when you wake up with the Bill of Rights removed from the constitution you will realize, "Oh we fucked up."

Bunch of idiots running the country letting history repeat itself. No, MAKING history repeat itself.
Score
4
April 7, 2009 3:28:18 AM

come on guys! INVESTIGATE! search, download and watch all ZEITGEIST documentaries. It will enlighten you, i promise!
Score
0
April 7, 2009 3:34:59 AM

The more and more I see what we are trying to do to stop terrorist, the more I believe that we are the terrorist. I am starting to think that we did know the attacks of 9/11 were coming and could have possibly stopped them but didn't because this way we could put our rules into place that dictates what other governments can and cannot do. Obama is not bringing change like everyone thinks, bush failed to convince the people that our policies should rule the world. So they needed a new face, an unprovable face. Bush was the start of the new world order and every president since him (Bush Sr.) has been nothing but a mere puppet. Welcome to the new world order, 12/21/2012 seems about right for our destruction...
Score
-1
April 7, 2009 3:49:57 AM

I keep thinking I should pick out a comment and respond to it to try and draw up a reasoned discussion. Honest, I do. But then I give up, wishing the forums and comments featured an "Ignore" capability. I'd be using the Hell out of it right now on anybody saying "Zeitgeist," "new world order," or "communism!"
I haven't been checking diligently: are all the Obama-related news posts on Tom's this crazy? Surely some among you panicky posters can do more than spout off a few ominous phrases, right? I'd like to see some kind of reason for this apparent paranoia, to be convinced that I should be concerned. Somebody please stick around and explain things?
Score
1
April 7, 2009 3:52:07 AM

i thought g. w. bush was out of power... ;-)
Score
-1
April 7, 2009 3:52:14 AM

the concept of maximum security is the loss of security to others. the government wants to secure the us democratic system but at the cost of the peoples liberty. the more secure the government is, the more insecure the people are.
Score
3
!