• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Novenmber 30th could be the day the Government siezes the Internet

Councilman

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Trifecta of Doom, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, have shown they don't give a damn about what "WE THE PEOPLE" want or what the Nation needs to survive the economic mess we're in regardless of whom you wish to blame for it today.

They and has already moved to take control over Healthcare and that spending was 17.3% of the US economy in 2009. and now with this additional 1/6th as you are about to learn is another 16.66%.

This comes to 33,96% of our overall economy controlled by Government, and don't you want to know what the hell they are up to?

Obama knows his grasp is slipping and he has to move as fast as he can before his policies and plans are scrapped.

So the November Surprise.

This will also mean he will be able to control not just Most TV News and Papers which is already working hand on sickle with him, but he will be able to shut down the free exchange of ideas and communications, that some of his Czars have already said they want to do.

What's the end game?

» November 30th Could Be the Day the Government Seizes Control of the Internet - Big Government

After two years of this Presidential Administration and this Congress, that is saying an awful lot about an awful lot.

And what’s worse, the FCC would be doing it without Congress weighing in. At the FCC’s November meeting – note the coincidental date of choice, AFTER the impending election – three unelected bureaucrats (of five) could simply vote themselves rulers of 1/6th of our entire economy – the information and technology sector.

Meaning the Internet that you currently enjoy – that has been a marvel of economic and information innovation and success – will be subject to vast new governmental regulations. You didn’t elect these people – but they are on the verge of electing themselves Internet overlords.
Click to expand...
 
Do you have actual reliable sources for this? Im not actually sure what "this" is because I'm having trouble sorting your actual point from your ranting.
 
Hoplite said:
Do you have actual reliable sources for this? Im not actually sure what "this" is because I'm having trouble sorting your actual point from your ranting.
Click to expand...

Check it out It's in plan English and far from a rant. It's pretty clear this is dangerous to take that much more of the economy out of private hands and if you don't think so you're certainly not part of the solution.
 
Did people really think the government wouldn't try to intervene on the internet?

It's something without regulation - and that can be tapped for vast financial resources. . . how could they resist that? It's like dope.
 
My God... how many socialists are members of DP???
 
Barbbtx said:
My God... how many socialists are members of DP???
Click to expand...

Given that there is no government ownership occurring, this does not qualify as socialism. This is regulation.

knowing-is-half-the-battle.jpg
 
Honestly - in the scope of our government's interests - I'm always surprised that they exert *little* control over the net - and that paying it attention is a very new thing.

Most other things that were a new invention or realization came under heavy regulation a lot sooner than 30, 40 years later.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Honestly - in the scope of our government's interests - I'm always surprised that they exert *little* control over the net - and that paying it attention is a very new thing.

Most other things that were a new invention or realization came under heavy regulation a lot sooner than 30, 40 years later.
Click to expand...

I think they did it the right way. Its better to have a hands off policy where government is concerned when dealing with new economies, unless there is a public danger, of course. But once an economy becomes mature and more integrated (meaning less in a box and can affect the well being of the nation as a whole), I think that is where it becomes appropriate to start establishing ground rules.

I would probably be a strong free marketer (as it is understood today) in the 1800s or so for that same reason. We need appropriate regulation for whatever stage we are in.
 
What Obama sees is Clinton's only positive crutch: the net brought around Clinton's surplus spending spree.

He's jealous - it's just that simple. :rofl
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What Obama sees is Clinton's only positive crutch: the net brought around Clinton's surplus spending spree.

He's jealous - it's just that simple. :rofl
Click to expand...

Where you get this conclusion from?
 
Well - a joke fail then

*cries into her failpail*
 
The airlines are heavily regulated. Damned socialized airlines! *shakes fist*

Regulation is not socialism. Words mean things.
 
Government intervention in this case is both necessary and dangerous, and could prove to be beneficial or harmful or a combination of both. On one hand, I need the FCC to stop Comcast from committing packet fraud with my internet connection. On the other hand, I really don't need the FCC throwing out 10,000 fines for Janet Jackson nipples on the internet. I hate the absurdly simple mentality that all regulation is "good" or "bad" with any ability to look the specifics of a situation. Reality is very complicated and there are rarely simple answers to the problems we face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom