• New bill will allow Barack Obama to shut down the internet.
    490 replies, posted
See, here in America that's called political dissent. A demonstration of the citizenry's discontent. [editline]06:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;17146149]Sometimes change is needed for a country to achieve stability.[/QUOTE] And Obama neither has or should have the power to do that. The idea that Obama can change things is a facade, that is not the executive branch's place in government.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17146157]See, here in America that's called political dissent. A demonstration of the citizenry's discontent. [editline]06:33PM[/editline] And Obama neither has or should have the power to do that. The idea that Obama can change things is a facade, that is not the executive branch's place in government.[/QUOTE] 1. Not voting will not get your point across...it does however mean that you have no right to complain about a system as you did not vote for the other guy (or see point 2) 2. Voting for a third party is a good way of getting a point across as it shows you are not content with the views of the main party, but you can find one that has a down to earth view of the world. 3. Expansion of point 2, in the case of England, voting the BNP as a protest group automatically makes you racist...so don't do it...unless you truly want those bastards in charge. 4. Voting for a government is all about change. They all have their ideals of which direction they want the country to move in. In the case of Bush, all he cared about was messing up as many countries as possible, stealing as much oil as he could, and making everyone feel like a criminal (no wonder him and Blair got on so well). As far as i can see, Obama is more about getting America as the peacekeeper back on track, rather than keeping the warmonger title. Bills like these are designed to protect the government against attack. It's the American way of opening up a new avenue of defense. Would you prefer the UK way of setting up a new department of hackers?
[QUOTE=IronPhoenix;17146342]1. Not voting will not get your point across...it does however mean that you have no right to complain about a system as you did not vote for the other guy (or see point 2) 2. Voting for a third party is a good way of getting a point across as it shows you are not content with the views of the main party, but you can find one that has a down to earth view of the world. 3. Expansion of point 2, in the case of England, voting the BNP as a protest group automatically makes you racist...so don't do it...unless you truly want those bastards in charge. 4. Voting for a government is all about change. They all have their ideals of which direction they want the country to move in. In the case of Bush, all he cared about was messing up as many countries as possible, stealing as much oil as he could, and making everyone feel like a criminal (no wonder him and Blair got on so well). As far as i can see, Obama is more about getting America as the peacekeeper back on track, rather than keeping the warmonger title. Bills like these are designed to protect the government against attack. It's the American way of opening up a new avenue of defense. Would you prefer the UK way of setting up a new department of hackers?[/QUOTE] 1. It seems to have been getting the point across very well given there are numerous and constant reports on how American Idol receives more individual votes than the US Presidential Election. 2. But I do not agree with any of the third parties. 3. I cannot comment on UK political systems. 4. In the US, voting for CONGRESS is all about change. Voting for the president is all about voting for a military and a police leader who has the capability of upholding and enforcing that which the Judicial and Legislative branches order him to do. When there are no candidates you like and you are discontent with the move from legitimate democracy to party-line pseudo-oligarchy, you do not participate in the system. I don't see how the final point at all relates to abstinence.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17145650]And that flaw is our fault. We let the parties get so ingrained, we allowed a two-party winner-take-all democracy to become so firmly established. They won't fix it, so the people have to. And you do not fix a flaw like that by feeding into it.[/QUOTE] America needs a parliamentary system. There are three or more parties present in the British parliament and France has about 12 parties.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17147605]America needs a parliamentary system. There are three or more parties present in the British parliament and France has about 12 parties.[/QUOTE] Except our British parliament is a bunch of old men and women making obscene quips at each other.
[QUOTE=thisispain;17147663]Except our British parliament is a bunch of old men and women making obscene quips at each other.[/QUOTE] I thought you lived in California.
fuck obama
Obama doesn't want peace he wants war and police states.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;17147712]I thought you lived in California.[/QUOTE] goddamn it bobby i'm born in england and live in california [editline]05:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=clonekiller;17147744]Obama doesn't want peace he wants war and police states.[/QUOTE] branches are for pussyes
[QUOTE=thisispain;17147663]Except our British parliament is a bunch of old men and women making obscene quips at each other.[/QUOTE] At least it's not our Parliament... Ireland is the most corrupt place in the universe. [editline]01:19AM[/editline] [QUOTE=clonekiller;17147744]Obama doesn't want peace he wants war and police states.[/QUOTE] You're a fortune teller?
[QUOTE=thisispain;17147748]goddamn it bobby i'm born in england and live in california [/QUOTE] I was born in California, lived in Ireland, Australia, and Malaysia, now finally residing in Ohio, yet I don't talk about the previous places I've lived.
[quote]You're a fortune teller?[/quote] Fuck yeah :cheers:
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;17148134]I was born in California, lived in Ireland, Australia, and Malaysia, now finally residing in Ohio, yet I don't talk about the previous places I've lived.[/QUOTE] YOu were in Ireland? ugh, my sacred corrupt ground... tainted with the Ronald Reagan lookalike. [editline]01:32AM[/editline] [QUOTE=clonekiller;17148156]Fuck yeah :cheers:[/QUOTE] Keep thinking that.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17148261]YOu were in Ireland? ugh, my sacred corrupt ground... tainted with the Ronald Reagan lookalike. [editline]01:32AM[/editline] Keep thinking that.[/QUOTE] I loved Ireland, I want to visit there first chance I get.
Fucker better not shut down my internets.
I can't really imagine how this would be necessary? If, hypothetically, terrorists blew up something else or whatever in New York, how would shutting down the Internet help, except possibly for prohibiting the terrorists from communicating? But you'd have to also shut down: -All cell phone networks. -All networks period. -Somehow interfere with and stop radio and walkie-talkie traffic. I can't imagine a scenario where this would actually help with national security in any way. edit: oh good, seems the Senate changed the bill quite a bit. that makes a lot more sense. One thing I could maybe understand is restricting ISP's from loading certain websites if they give away national secrets or something like that.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17147605]America needs a parliamentary system. There are three or more parties present in the British parliament and France has about 12 parties.[/QUOTE] No we don't. Radical change, defying the Constitution and dumbshit useless shift in government policy wouldn't have any effect on the parties, they are private organizations. Just because Britain has a bunch of parties doesn't mean a parliamentary government is the sole reason, because it really isn't.
Regardless it still works, and I don't see how a parliament would be unconstitutional.
I'm working under the assumption that Lankist is actually a hippopotamus that lives in Africa and found a discarded laptop with satellite internet. He has pursued a human education through the internet and has formed a delusion in his mind that he's actually a human lawyer. In reality, all he does is browse the internet and avoid crocodiles and lions all day. The other hippos don't have the information he has, though, so his newfound abilities have turned him into an outcast inside the watering hole he lives. At least that's what I think.
[QUOTE=johnlukeg;17149594] At least that's what I think.[/QUOTE] seek professional help
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17149411]Regardless it still works, and I don't see how a parliament would be unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] The constitution ensures the three-branch government we have today. [editline]11:37PM[/editline] [QUOTE=johnlukeg;17149594]I'm working under the assumption that Lankist is actually a hippopotamus that lives in Africa and found a discarded laptop with satellite internet. He has pursued a human education through the internet and has formed a delusion in his mind that he's actually a human lawyer. In reality, all he does is browse the internet and avoid crocodiles and lions all day. The other hippos don't have the information he has, though, so his newfound abilities have turned him into an outcast inside the watering hole he lives. At least that's what I think.[/QUOTE] It's nice to know that when confronted with the idea of someone who is actually credible in the fields they discuss, Facepunch goes into denial mode.
[QUOTE=ioc;17090298]mccain is against net neutrality. good job.[/QUOTE] I gave you your 69th agree. Anyway, there's no freakin' way this will pass. After the Patriot Act, this is about as likely as the State of Utah realizing that gays are human.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17151061]The constitution ensures the three-branch government we have today. [/QUOTE] It's not like there would be an elimination or combination of branches. England runs on a multiple branch system. Not just 3.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17152201]It's not like there would be an elimination or combination of branches. England runs on a multiple branch system. Not just 3.[/QUOTE] Changing our system of government that radically would go against the Constitution, that is just the fact of the matter.
Of all the things that have changed the constitution radically, you protest one that will better the American system?
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17152248]Of all the things that have changed the constitution radically, you protest one that will better the American system?[/QUOTE] When I asked you how a parliamentary system would solve the current party issue you neglected to answer. The Constitution isn't the problem, the pseudo-oligarchical power vested in the two primary parties is. A parliamentary system is not only impossible, it is entirely counterproductive. Then again you probably haven't read the Constitution.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;17152248]Of all the things that have changed the constitution radically, you protest one that will better the American system?[/QUOTE] Presidential System: Legislative and Executive branches are separate. They are elected separately and both have set terms.* Parliamentary System: Legislative and Executive branches are the same. The Executives are chosen from the Parliament and may stay in office until they are no longer supported by Parliament.* Sure, it would be a different way of going about things, but what would it accomplish? Why do you think we should rewrite the Constitution for that? [i]* Generalized, may be different in your nation.[/i]
Furthermore we have very specific limits of power on the current system. To shift the powers of government so radically would invariably breed corruption. Our nation was not designed for such a system, there is no point in our adopting it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17152333]When I asked you how a parliamentary system would solve the current party issue you neglected to answer. The Constitution isn't the problem, the pseudo-oligarchical power vested in the two primary parties is. A parliamentary system is not only impossible, it is entirely counterproductive. Then again you probably haven't read the Constitution.[/QUOTE] You never asked. A parliament combines the legislative and executive, and has multiple checks and balance systems. Not just government organizations for regulation, like the FAA, FCC, FDA, etc. It's not only regulation of industry, it's strong regulation of the government. But whatever, it works in England. I have. Oh wait, I don't have a law degree and don't live in America, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to have. [editline]06:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;17152361] [i]* Generalized, may be different in your nation.[/i][/QUOTE] There you go.
If you had read the Constitution you would realize our government is incompatible with what you are suggesting. [editline]01:46AM[/editline] I'll ask now: How would a parliamentary system solve party issues? [editline]01:48AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Trotsky;17152575]I have. Oh wait, I don't have a law degree and don't live in America, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to have.[/QUOTE] It's a matter of common courtesy. Have you ever seen me telling England that it needs to radically change its system of government? Fuck no, because I don't know fuck about England and you don't know fuck about the US. There is no inherent shame in not understanding, I am not sure why everyone gets defensive like they're experts on all governments. I am not an expert and therefore do not comment with any basis of knowledge on scientific issues, geopolitical issues, medicine, foreign politics, war fighting and tactics and economics. It would be nice if you people would learn to accept what you DON'T understand and would stop pretending you get it all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.