Folks, you best take this seriously and act soon.

I like the idea of an internet kill switch. The President can keep it right next to his "blow up the world switch"
 
This is true.. Out of the 9 hardcore professional geeks I know, 9 are hardcore right.

Of the 300 I know, only a handful are conservative and only one is a wingnut

Overseas help desk nutters are *not* professional geeks, no matter how you try to dress them up and disguise their voices.

Then why did you bring up those 9 overseas help desk nutters?
 
Those 9 geeks make 6 figures, puppy..

My 300 geeks make more, cupcake

You're going to tell me that you know 300 people that make more than a million dollars a year as a compugeek?

LOL! You might try going a mere 24 hours trying to not look like a fool.

Master that, and we'll move on to a week.

Baby steps.

Six figures is $100,000
 
My 300 geeks make more, cupcake

You're going to tell me that you know 300 people that make more than a million dollars a year as a compugeek?

LOL! You might try going a mere 24 hours trying to not look like a fool.

Master that, and we'll move on to a week.

Baby steps.

Six figures is $100,000

What do you expect from a wingnut? They think that the 1trillion that Obama added to the national debt is larger than the 5trillion bush added:cuckoo:
 
This may surprise you, but I spend ZERO time thinking about what you might say.:lol:

This may surprise you too, but this isn't about *YOU*
Never said it did, did I?

I'm curious, though, that if you think it isn't about me, why you seem so intent on predicting my reaction -- especially since I spelled out my opposition, and you ignored it.

It's time for your meds. I never predicted your reaction. Those must be the voices in your head talking.
And you STILL can't address my opposition, choosing instead to tangentially talk about me.

Any particular reason? You even fucked up the quote tags taking it out! :lol:
 
Never said it did, did I?

I'm curious, though, that if you think it isn't about me, why you seem so intent on predicting my reaction -- especially since I spelled out my opposition, and you ignored it.

It's time for your meds. I never predicted your reaction. Those must be the voices in your head talking.
And you STILL can't address my opposition, choosing instead to tangentially talk about me.

Any particular reason? You even fucked up the quote tags taking it out! :lol:

What opposition? All you've done is toss around some insults. I don't remember you posting any opposition.

Someone claimed that this bill was something Obama "dished out". I pointed out that bush was the one who dished it out. You then responded with a one word response (ie "So?")

Then after I merely repeated that I was pointing out that it wasn't Obama who "dished" this out, you went on some rant about what I "expected" you to say.

I don't see any opposition to anything aside from me.
 
I'm curious, though, that if you think it isn't about me, why you seem so intent on predicting my reaction -- especially since I spelled out my opposition, and you ignored it.

It's time for your meds. I never predicted your reaction. Those must be the voices in your head talking.
And you STILL can't address my opposition, choosing instead to tangentially talk about me.

Any particular reason? You even fucked up the quote tags taking it out! :lol:

What opposition? All you've done is toss around some insults. I don't remember you posting any opposition.

Someone claimed that this bill was something Obama "dished out". I pointed out that bush was the one who dished it out. You then responded with a one word response (ie "So?")

Then after I merely repeated that I was pointing out that it wasn't Obama who "dished" this out, you went on some rant about what I "expected" you to say.

I don't see any opposition to anything aside from me.
My goodness, you're a dishonest little person.

If you werent such a partisan hack, you'd realize this was "dished out" by bush

I repeat: So? Do you expect me to say, "Oh, if Bush wanted it, it must be cool!"?

Not happening. In case you haven't noticed, I don't want an all-powerful government. Such power as this is too open to politically-motivated abuse.
In your response to this post, you edited out the reason for my opposition, bolded above.
If you werent such a partisan hack, you'd realize this was "dished out" by bush

I repeat: So? Do you expect me to say, "Oh, if Bush wanted it, it must be cool!"?

This may surprise you, but I spend ZERO time thinking about what you might say.:lol:

This may surprise you too, but this isn't about *YOU*

If you're going to try to rewrite history, you might want to try history that isn't so easily fact-checked.

Moron. :lol:
 
You're going to tell me that you know 300 people that make more than a million dollars a year as a compugeek?

LOL! You might try going a mere 24 hours trying to not look like a fool.

Master that, and we'll move on to a week.

Baby steps.

Six figures is $100,000

What do you expect from a wingnut? They think that the 1trillion that Obama added to the national debt is larger than the 5trillion bush added:cuckoo:

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.
National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I'm not excusing the Bush administration. But if Obama continues to spend money at the same rate he spent it that first 421 days, he will have added 14 trillion to the National Debt by the end of 8 years.
 
And you STILL can't address my opposition, choosing instead to tangentially talk about me.

Any particular reason? You even fucked up the quote tags taking it out! :lol:

What opposition? All you've done is toss around some insults. I don't remember you posting any opposition.

Someone claimed that this bill was something Obama "dished out". I pointed out that bush was the one who dished it out. You then responded with a one word response (ie "So?")

Then after I merely repeated that I was pointing out that it wasn't Obama who "dished" this out, you went on some rant about what I "expected" you to say.

I don't see any opposition to anything aside from me.
My goodness, you're a dishonest little person.
In your response to this post, you edited out the reason for my opposition, bolded above.
I repeat: So? Do you expect me to say, "Oh, if Bush wanted it, it must be cool!"?

This may surprise you, but I spend ZERO time thinking about what you might say.:lol:

This may surprise you too, but this isn't about *YOU*

If you're going to try to rewrite history, you might want to try history that isn't so easily fact-checked.

Moron. :lol:

WHen you said "opposition" I thought you were referring to opposing something I said.

I did not address your "opposition" to this bill because it had nothing to do with anything I said in the post you responded to.

So now I will address your opposition to this bill:

You're a moron for not realizing that the President already has the power to shut down the internet. This power comes from the Telecommunications Act of 1933 (amended in 1996). The bill referred to in the OP puts some restrictions on this power, so it represent a diminishment of fed power, not an increase
 
Internet Kill Switch Approved by Senate Committee - cbs4.com

quote:

"Initially, the bill would have given the president unlimited authority on how long he could control the Internet, but an amendment passed Friday says he would have to get the approval of Congress to shut down the Internet for more than 120 days."


Please contact your congressman today and voice your opinion on this. We simply can not allow DC to take the internet. Think China, Iran, Venezuela.......

Your screen name is rocky top lady? WEll, I guess thats better than being a sloppy submisive bottom...:doubt:
 
Remember the days when the Executive Branch having more and more power was a bad thing? That seems to have gone the way of "dissent is patriotic". :cool:


As I've said...Democrats are short-sighted. They don't think about what's going to happen when they have to hand all this power to a GOP-controlled Congress and White House. [insert delusional screeches of "That's never going to happen!!" here]

Bush baby!
 

If you werent such a partisan hack, you'd realize this was "dished out" by bush

I repeat: So? Do you expect me to say, "Oh, if Bush wanted it, it must be cool!"?

Not happening. In case you haven't noticed, I don't want an all-powerful government. Such power as this is too open to politically-motivated abuse.

this would make sense if you complained when bush was in office.




Hack.
 
WHen you said "opposition" I thought you were referring to opposing something I said.
This may surprise you too, but this isn't about *YOU*. :lol: Dumbass.
I did not address your "opposition" to this bill because it had nothing to do with anything I said in the post you responded to.
Yes, it did. You were just too busy thinking it's all about *YOU*.
So now I will address your opposition to this bill:

You're a moron for not realizing that the President already has the power to shut down the internet. This power comes from the Telecommunications Act of 1933 (amended in 1996). The bill referred to in the OP puts some restrictions on this power, so it represent a diminishment of fed power, not an increase
And it's STILL too much power in government subject to abuse for political reasons.
 

Forum List

Back
Top