to hell with free speech

[formerlurker]

That's all you're arguing, dude.

Quoting what they are supposed to have the right to do has nothing - NOTHING - to do with what they decide to do. Standing up and saying "COTUS says this, therefore that's how it works" means nothing (sadly. ).... How many examples do you need?

What are you talking about?    Examples of what?    You are so far of course here from the OP that it isn't even funny.  

If one wants to assume that a government is dark and rouge then all kinds of stuff can be brought up...think back to how stupid we all thought the DUmmies were to believe that President Bush was going to suspend or cancel elections and so on.

The idea that the government is going to seize the internet unilaterally (which I guess now is what "ability" means -- still spinning so who knows where it will land -- Lincoln had language of the Constitution to suspend HB,  still waiting for a precedence on "ability" he is referring to)  I have said is DU nonsense, but now I know I was correct in pointing to Lewrockwell.   The DU nutjobs ain't got nothing on the lewrockwell libertarian crazy.    Not a blessed thing.  

[formerlurker]

Really is that the best you can do in defense of your opinion?  Result to insults and accuse others of being a DU member merely because you don't like what they are saying?

listen for the helicopters.... they are coming dude....

[rich_t]

listen for the helicopters.... they are coming dude....

More insults?

Is that ALL you have left?

Try debating the facts.  Or are they inconvenient for you?

[formerlurker]

More insults?

Is that ALL you have left?

Try debating the facts.  Or are they inconvenient for you?

Why don't you give me ONE example "So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?"

Just one.   

[rich_t]

Why don't you give me ONE example "So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?"

Just one.   

One such example has already been provided by another poster.

Why don't you do your own home work if you desire other examples?

You simply refuse to believe that the US Government has the physical ability to shut down the internet and want to argue about it.

No more, no less.

Please note that I still haven't called you names or otherwise insulted you like asking for your DU name.

You go on and believe what you wish to.  I really don't give a damn.

[formerlurker]

One such example has already been provided by another poster.

Where?

Why don't you do your own home work if you desire other examples?

Your assertion.  Put up, or please just stop already.

You simply refuse to believe that the US Government has the physical ability to shut down the internet and want to argue about it.

Where did I say that again?  

Please note that I still haven't called you names or otherwise insulted you like asking for your DU name.

You go on and believe what you wish to.  I really don't give a damn.

You were deliberately obtuse, which is of course your game here.  No more.  No less.

[Carl]

Does the government have the "ability" to suspend at will the First Amendment which grants a freedom of speech and the press.
In theory they could have the AG order all state AGs to send law enforcement to secure and direct news outlets and public airwaves broadcasters.
Where does anyone here think that hypothetical would lead to?
Would there be another method to do it?

[formerlurker]

Does the government have the "ability" to suspend at will the First Amendment which grants a freedom of speech and the press.
In theory they could have the AG order all state AGs to send law enforcement to secure and direct news outlets and public airwaves broadcasters.
Where does anyone here think that hypothetical would lead to?
Would there be another method to do it?

I was looking for an example of this type of scenario already occurring, which rich_t claims has happened.   

[formerlurker]

Just to be clear rich_t, this example would be absent of legislative authority (whether Constitutional or not) provided for by Congress, or the Constitution (suspension of HB).       

[NHSparky]

People thought that would happen with SS as well... never did.

You're counting your chickens before they hatch.

Sorry, but you failed to consider a few facts, namely those that the SCOTUS was overwhelmingly liberal (and FDR tried to pack it to make it even more so), and there was never any danger of the House or Senate reverting back to Republican hands in that time.

Here we have a VERY different situation.

[rich_t]

Sorry, but you failed to consider a few facts, namely those that the SCOTUS was overwhelmingly liberal (and FDR tried to pack it to make it even more so), and there was never any danger of the House or Senate reverting back to Republican hands in that time.

Here we have a VERY different situation.

I just hope that the remaining conservative justices stay healthy for the next 2+ years.

[Randy]

Does the government have the "ability" to suspend at will the First Amendment which grants a freedom of speech and the press.
In theory they could have the AG order all state AGs to send law enforcement to secure and direct news outlets and public airwaves broadcasters.
Where does anyone here think that hypothetical would lead to?
Would there be another method to do it?

I remember where a Government decided to suspend the 2nd amendment and sent law enforcement and National Guard Troops in to confiscate citizens guns after a little storm called Katrina.

The SCOTUS exists to take back our rights from the Government when they get uppity and pass laws and implement things beyond their boundaries. It happens all the time.

Absolutely nothing exists to stop the Government from taking control of the internet. They have lots of excuses they can use to do it. Lets just make up something here and say as an example that ole Joran Van Der Sloot was meeting young girls online and killing them in exotic locations rather than picking them up in bars. There's absolutely nothing to stop an executive order shutting down the internet to stop this sort of thing from happening. None. The Internet just doesn't have an amendment.

All holy mortal hell would break loose because of it and there would be lawsuits galore filed all over the country. In 10-20 years after they've all worked their way through the system and been upheld here, slapped down there, appealed, appealed, appealed, reappealed and appealed, combined, appealed another dozen times and then finally one suit will survive to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Once there it may or may not be upheld depending on the wording of the suit that finally got there. IF it's slapped down then maybe your kids or grandkids might get to play online again, with appropriate restrictions of course.

[rich_t]

I remember where a Government decided to suspend the 2nd amendment and sent law enforcement and National Guard Troops in to confiscate citizens guns after a little storm called Katrina.

The SCOTUS exists to take back our rights from the Government when they get uppity and pass laws and implement things beyond their boundaries. It happens all the time.

Absolutely nothing exists to stop the Government from taking control of the internet. They have lots of excuses they can use to do it. Lets just make up something here and say as an example that ole Joran Van Der Sloot was meeting young girls online and killing them in exotic locations rather than picking them up in bars. There's absolutely nothing to stop an executive order shutting down the internet to stop this sort of thing from happening. None. The Internet just doesn't have an amendment.

All holy mortal hell would break loose because of it and there would be lawsuits galore filed all over the country. In 10-20 years after they've all worked their way through the system and been upheld here, slapped down there, appealed, appealed, appealed, reappealed and appealed, combined, appealed another dozen times and then finally one suit will survive to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Once there it may or may not be upheld depending on the wording of the suit that finally got there. IF it's slapped down then maybe your kids or grandkids might get to play online again, with appropriate restrictions of course.

Exactly.

[bkg]

What are you talking about?    Examples of what?    You are so far of course here from the OP that it isn't even funny.   

Why don't you give me ONE example "So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?"

Just one.   

Provided an example, you didn't like it... so now you ask for more examples?

You're a bit all over the place with this topic, dude... Examples already posted, yet you continue to claim that gov't has no ability to do something that a document says they cannot... Yet they have and continue to do it - on a regular basis, almost - so I honestly have no idea what side of the argument you're on anymore.

But I have to agree with Rich_t... if you're only responses are insults, you're not adding anything to the conversation or your position.

[bkg]

Sorry, but you failed to consider a few facts, namely those that the SCOTUS was overwhelmingly liberal (and FDR tried to pack it to make it even more so), and there was never any danger of the House or Senate reverting back to Republican hands in that time.

Here we have a VERY different situation.

And we've had conservative SCOTUS (and all branches of gov't) on and off since then... never been ruled to violate COTUS, has it?

If we take the words of the governing documents as Gospel, then it shouldn't matter who or when... it just matters what... If we state gov't has no ability to do X when a CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS is residing, but they do when a LIBERAL SCOTUS is residing, then we have no need for a Constitution at all, frankly.

[formerlurker]

Provided an example, you didn't like it... so now you ask for more examples?

You're a bit all over the place with this topic, dude... Examples already posted, yet you continue to claim that gov't has no ability to do something that a document says they cannot... Yet they have and continue to do it - on a regular basis, almost - so I honestly have no idea what side of the argument you're on anymore.

But I have to agree with Rich_t... if you're only responses are insults, you're not adding anything to the conversation or your position.

You have absolutely no idea what you are defending.  

Quote from: formerlurker on June 20, 2010, 06:42:47 am
??

Where are they inhibiting, and this is already in the Patriot Act.   This is not the new legislation they are proposing where they actually can take over the internet.

rich_t's response

The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.

Why don't you actually read the entire thread prior to racing in with your pom-poms on auto-pilot for your pal?  

Congress has had the "ability" to pass legislation since the Constitution was ratified.  I even commented to that in this very thread.    That isn't what rich_t was inferring though here was it as it pretty much is what I had said in the post he was replying to?  

Congress passed legislation mandating health coverage.  Constitutionality?   to be decided.

Not the example I am looking for, but of course you all know that.  

rich_t claims they have the physical ability to seize the internet and as such will do so as they have done so in the past.  Example please?

The seizing of weapons in NO was done based on their interpretation of the Lousiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act.  Again, legislation passed.  Constitutionality to be decided?  The NRA settled their lawsuit so I guess they feel a violation of second amendment is something that can be settled???  

Unilaterally acting without authority, but based on mere ability?   Haven't seen it.    Would like an example.  If it is as widespread as rich_t claims, it should be easy to supply one.  

His premise.  Not mine.  

[formerlurker]

Absolutely nothing exists to stop the Government from taking control of the internet.

Congress exists and will stop this legislation.

There's absolutely nothing to stop an executive order shutting down the internet to stop this sort of thing from happening. None. The Internet just doesn't have an amendment.

I don't think he has that authority -- as we witnessed today, a federal judge has allowed an injunction against his EO banning offshore drilling.   We do have safeguards in place.

All holy mortal hell would break loose because of it and there would be lawsuits galore filed all over the country. In 10-20 years after they've all worked their way through the system and been upheld here, slapped down there, appealed, appealed, appealed, reappealed and appealed, combined, appealed another dozen times and then finally one suit will survive to be argued in front of the Supreme Court. Once there it may or may not be upheld depending on the wording of the suit that finally got there. IF it's slapped down then maybe your kids or grandkids might get to play online again, with appropriate restrictions of course.

Injuction banning the EO would happen, and it would be the White House filing appeals.   Congress in the meanwhile would put an end to it with legislation.  I just don't see it happening, even with the supermajority.  

[rich_t]

You have absolutely no idea what you are defending.  
 

rich_t's response

Why don't you actually read the entire thread prior to racing in with your pom-poms on auto-pilot for your pal?  

Congress has had the "ability" to pass legislation since the Constitution was ratified.  I even commented to that in this very thread.    That isn't what rich_t was inferring though here was it as it pretty much is what I had said in the post he was replying to?  

Congress passed legislation mandating health coverage.  Constitutionality?   to be decided.

Not the example I am looking for, but of course you all know that.  

rich_t claims they have the physical ability to seize the internet and as such will do so as they have done so in the past.  Example please?

The seizing of weapons in NO was done based on their interpretation of the Lousiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act.  Again, legislation passed.  Constitutionality to be decided?  The NRA settled their lawsuit so I guess they feel a violation of second amendment is something that can be settled???  

Unilaterally acting without authority, but based on mere ability?   Haven't seen it.    Would like an example.  If it is as widespread as rich_t claims, it should be easy to supply one.  

His premise.  Not mine.  

Try reading reply #44 of this thread.

After that go find another leg to hump you ignorant bitch.

Ya see FL, you ain't the only one with the "ability" to insult others.

 


Do you comprehend the term "ability" yet?

ROFLMAO.

[formerlurker]

Try reading reply #44 of this thread.

After that go find another leg to hump you ignorant bitch.

Ya see FL, you ain't the only one with the "ability" to insult others.

 

Which is what you spun it around to didn't you sport?   Except is makes no sense does it when you look at your first response to my post?  I never questioned the military's "physical ability" to take over the internet.   

You are clearly not the brightest bulb in the Christmas light display are you?   

[rich_t]

Which is what you spun it around to didn't you sport?   Except is makes no sense does it when you look at your first response to my post?  I never questioned the military's "physical ability" to take over the internet.   

You are clearly not the brightest bulb in the Christmas light display are you?   

I am bright enough to know that you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong.  What's your DU name?

[formerlurker]

I am bright enough to know that you lack the integrity to admit that you are wrong.  What's your DU name?

 

The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.

Go ahead and pick a meaning here kids.   

   

I guess some folks think that the goverment lacks the physical power or capacity to take over the internet as it currently exists in the US.

I never once said or inferred this.

I for one know they do.  Their legal authority to do so is not an issue, as the US government has proven time and time and time again that they will attempt and actually do things that they have no legal (read constitutional) authority to do.

Ah but it is the issue and it is the topic of this thread.    At first I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but have come to realize that it isn't deliberate is it? 

[rich_t]

I posted that The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.

FL has spent a lot of time trying to prove they don't, yet has provided no evidence to prove her assertaion.

She seems to be ignorant of the definition of the word "ability".

She has demanded what part of the "written" law gives the FED the "authority".  When it was pointed out that legal "authority" had no bearing on physical "ability" she started with the insults.

She refuses to believe that the FED has mandated ISPs to perform s/w and H/w upgrades that allow the FED not only the "ability" to montior, but to take control.

In other words she doesn't like reality and prefers to live in a world of "as it should be".

I don't live in that world.  I live in the world as it "actually" is.

[formerlurker]

So you have NEVER heard of the government doing something they lacked the legal authority, yet had the physical ability to do right?  

Still waiting for an example of this rich_t -- which won't come as we all know.

[formerlurker]

I posted that The FED has had the ability to take over the internet for years.

FL has spent a lot of time trying to prove they don't, yet has provided no evidence to prove her assertaion.

She seems to be ignorant of the definition of the word "ability".

She has demanded what part of the "written" law gives the FED the "authority".  When it was pointed out that legal "authority" had no bearing on physical "ability" she started with the insults.

She refuses to believe that the FED has mandated ISPs to perform s/w and H/w upgrades that allow the FED not only the "ability" to montior, but to take control.

In other words she doesn't like reality and prefers to live in a world of "as it should be".

I don't live in that world.  I live in the world as it "actually" is.

Never once said this, and have directed all of my questions from the beginning to legal authority.   

Reality is something that has been lost in your world for quite some time. 

[rich_t]

Never once said this, and have directed all of my questions from the beginning to legal authority.  

.  

Stop lying.

Once it was pointed out to you that I was talking about physical ability, you still opted to argue about it.

Your own ****ing posts prove it.  Deal with it.