Does S-773 concern you?

Roy Pitchford · Post by **Roy Pitchford** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:55 pm

S-773:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:05 pm

It sure does. So did the patriot act. That worked out well, right?

S-773 should be stopped.

Stan Austin · Post by **Stan Austin** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:50 pm

If it keeps Corey from saying bad things about me, I'm all for it!

Roy Pitchford · Post by **Roy Pitchford** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:35 pm

Jim DeVito wrote:It sure does. So did the patriot act. That worked out well, right?

S-773 should be stopped.

Nice to hear.
If I may, why do you object to it? On the ground of Constitutionality or something else?

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:34 pm

Roy, while I am no constitutional scholar, I am sure there are implications that will not be properly debated before anything is set in stone.

I guess one fear is that for any of this to work in the event of a "cyber attack" there has to be mechanisms in place to "control" key networks. I do not trust most of Washington to not (when it benefits their wack job agendas) to not use the same mechanisms for evil.

Charlie Page · Post by **Charlie Page** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:47 pm

The enemies list and snitch database are nearly complete...only thing left to do is shut off their computers. It's the next logical step. :shock:

Roy Pitchford · Post by **Roy Pitchford** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:39 am

Valid points, Jim.

Now, do you feel the same way about Mark Lloyd, the new Chief Diversity Officer at the FCC?

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:01 am

Good Lord. The FCC, there is a can of worms. I have many problems with the FCC. While I am not sure as to what his angle is. Googling his name only seems to bring up right wing blogs that want to crucify him for finding more funding sources for public radio. Something about him having a calculated plan to straight up steel money from private radio stations to give it to the great liberal devil "public radio". That sounds a bit silly but again I will admit I do not know much about the guy. I will however profess my support for public radio and general dislike of clear channel, cbs radio and the like.

A bit off topic if I may. I am more concerned with the FCC taking a firm stand for net neutrality...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New- ... ity-104123

As well as investigating evil telcos for their anti competitive practices.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC- ... try-104163

Is any of that going to happen (including Mark Loyd's alleged plot)? Who knows ;-)

Roy Pitchford · Post by **Roy Pitchford** » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:10 pm

"Pressure, pressure pressure...We need to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true oppositio - the broadcasters."
- Prologue to a Farce, by Mark Lloyd -

"...my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press...this freedom is all to often an exaggeration...blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies."
- Mark Lloyd -

I give you credit Jim for stating that you don't know much about the guy. I invite you, and others here, to look a little deeper with me. I could go into a lot more things that concern me, but I think keeping on topic would be good.

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:04 pm

The plot thickens... Note the last paragraph, that is the real problem.

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:08 pm

To your above point Roy. How much power does the "Director of Diversity" really have? The FCC has proven in the past to be inadequate at best when it come to regulating things. (well anything that is not cursing on tv that is)

Roy Pitchford · Post by **Roy Pitchford** » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:30 pm

Jim DeVito wrote:To your above point Roy. How much power does the "Director of Diversity" really have? The FCC has proven in the past to be inadequate at best when it come to regulating things. (well anything that is not cursing on tv that is)

Valid point. He could have very little power right now, but if called upon in an "emergency" his power could easily increase. How did the FCC react to the Janet Jackson incident at the Super Bowl? And that is nothing in comparison to a real emergency.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I by that is its an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

I have lost count of the number of times I've heard these Rahm Emmanuel words. Do you know what it reminds me of? A movie script...

ASK AAK: The debate is over! Now we need that clone army...

BAIL ORGANA: Unfortunately, the debate is not over. The Senate will never approve the use of the clones before the separatists attack.

MAS AMEDDA: This is a crisis! The Senate must vote the Chancellor emergency powers! He could then approve the use of the clones.

--Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones--

Many a president (democrat and republican) has used emergencies to increase the power of the government.
Lincoln used the Civil War. (Habeas Corpus)
FDR used the Depression. (New Deal)
Bush 43 had 9/11. (Patriot Act)
I want to say that Clinton did stuff after Oklahoma City and after Waco, but I can't be sure. I have similar thoughts regarding Woodrow Wilson and LBJ.

How many times has Congress had to rush into passing a bill because its an emergency. The latest stimulus, auto bailouts, TARP and they almost did it with health care.

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:55 am

hmmm... I agree with all the above points. ;-)

Roy Pitchford · Post by **Roy Pitchford** » Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:01 pm

What else could an emergency bring?

"Because every old person was once young, an emphasis on life-years does not discriminate against anyone; the very people who lose when older also gained when younger...in producing regulatory impact analysis...agencies should inquire into life-years, and take into account of that inquiry in deciding what to do."
--Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs--

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men."
--John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
--John Holdren

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection."
--John Holdren

Disconcerting?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:14 pm

speaking of concern... what do you think about Obama amending Executive Order 1245?? and designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions and immunities in the US???

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... rder-12425

any opinions???

please note that I have not given an opinion on this subject..

PS read Executive Order 1245...

Does S-773 concern you?

Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?

Re: Does S-773 concern you?