The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: More BHO administration paranoia...

  1. #11
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    This is interesting. What Obama is proposing to do now is wrong. It was wrong when the previous president decided he didn't need warrants to spy on Americans. Why is it different now that Obama wants to infringe on Constitutional rights than when George Bush did it? If I remember correctly I didn't hear any outrage from the many conservatives on this board just alot of intellectually corrupt justifications.
    This just shows me that when we take sides on an issue,(based on party affiliation) we are more readily able to forgive the party we support if they do it instead of seeing it is wrong regardless who does it.
    If you actually read the bill sections, they permit the President to disconnect systems from the internet. They do not permit him to examine contents. The regulations govern standards for securing systems, but also do not permit content to be examined.

    The risk is not in what the law permits but in the fact that it positions the government to act inappropriately with greater ease. Part of the legislation is the formation of an advisory group to develop standards for protecting privacy. However, there is inherent risk. The problem is that the national security risk is also real and needs to be addressed.

    By the way, none of these standards apply to machines that are not hosting systems deemed to be critical to security. This, nothing in this bill would give the government access to personal computers. However, given that most software attacks are now launched through Trojans that attack and take over personal computers attached to the Internet, effective defense strategies will ultimately need to improve tools for tracking these attacks back to the hosts that launch them and from there back to the hosts that planted the original Trojans. This may not be possible without forensic assessment of the intermediate machines. These are typically personally owned machines that do not house any critical systems.

  2. #12
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    I'm with Yardley on this. The Chinese and North Koreans have both already successfully tested the waters on disrupting the internet and hacking into important systems in America. The ramifications of a shutdown of the internet would be crippling to us...our financial system, our power grid, transportation, defense, nearly everything revolves around computers and the internet. We should do whatever we can to protect it.

    From a practical standpoint, when Obama was elected we passed him the keys to our nuclear arsenal, the keys to declaring martial law, the keys to our military, and about 100 other keys that would allow him to take over, ruin, kill, whatever this country if he wanted to. While I don't agree with much of his politics, I don't think he's a madman who intends to establish himself as our own Mao, Stalin or Chavez. If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt.
    Wait a minute. He pays to destroy good capital with the cars for clunkers on the pretense of getting off our addiction foreign oil. Here is an idea! Let's get off our addiction to a communication system that cannot be secured. Build a secure system, if your going to blow tax dollars. Heck, my dad and uncles used to have their own telephone system before WW2. I think we can work that out 70 years later!!!!

  3. #13
    Senior Member TXduckdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    632

    Default

    By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

    This accumulation of power is disturbing.

    "If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt."

    I say not a freaking chance. I would and did give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff they did because I trusted they were doing it for national security, and they were. Obama and this congress are too radical, too mysterious and so far have demonstrated they can't get things right....NO WAY I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...until they demonstrate they have US citizens well being as their primary objective....not accumulation of power for powers sake.
    Train the dog, the ribbons will take care of themselves.

  4. #14
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TXduckdog View Post
    By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

    This accumulation of power is disturbing.

    "If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt."

    I say not a freaking chance. I would and did give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff they did because I trusted they were doing it for national security, and they were. Obama and this congress are too radical, too mysterious and so far have demonstrated they can't get things right....NO WAY I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...until they demonstrate they have US citizens well being as their primary objective....not accumulation of power for powers sake.
    The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.

  5. #15
    Senior Member tpaschal30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salisbury, MD
    Posts
    263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.
    Then why would you not feel the same of Obama. Does he have less power than Bush? Should Obama be relieved of some power? Or is it you trust Obama and not Bush? If so, it is just preference.

  6. #16
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    . Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. .
    I've been asleep for the past 8 years. Exactly what did he abuse and if he did way wasn't he stoped? Just wondering...
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  7. #17
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TXduckdog View Post
    By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

    This accumulation of power is disturbing.
    Again, the lack of outrage over the past 8 years casts doubt on the true nature of the concerns here, when we saw power-grabbing like nothing since the Civil War!

    Warrant-less wiretaps, recess appointments, stacking of the justice deptartment, war powers, executive privelages, signing statements, reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....

    I was outraged then, and I am outraged now with some of the things that are occuring in the Obama whitehouse. Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  8. #18
    Senior Member K G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    southeast us
    Posts
    5,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.
    7 months vs. 96.......

    Hang on to your hat regards,

    kg
    I keep my PM box full. Use email to contact me: rockytopkg@aol.com.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....
    Oh my GOSH! That's horrible! I would really like to read about all those courageous reporters who were thrown in the pokey for not revealing their "Bush-unfriendly" sources. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to look for this info? Maybe a reporter's name? A link to an article? You know, those sorts of things. Thanks much.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  10. #20
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    Oh my GOSH! That's horrible! I would really like to read about all those courageous reporters who were thrown in the pokey for not revealing their "Bush-unfriendly" sources. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to look for this info? Maybe a reporter's name? A link to an article? You know, those sorts of things. Thanks much.
    If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.

Similar Threads

  1. Swine Flu Paranoia - GDG
    By FOM in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 08:28 AM
  2. Obama administration to release Bush-era detainee photos
    By Cody Covey in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-26-2009, 07:19 PM
  3. BHO says only government can fix economy
    By Steve in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 10:28 AM
  4. Do you think BHO will take credit for these jobs??
    By Mike Noel in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 08:59 AM
  5. What does BHO’s Election Mean for Race Relations
    By badbullgator in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •