President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby treetopovskaya » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:51 pm

Lula wrote:nominations does not equate cabinet members. to state that half of the cabinet are tax cheats and link to a story from march talking about nominees.... yeah, not so much, but nice try ;).

what does "march" have to do with anything?

and let me ask you this: shouldn't the white house be checking the background on his nominees *before* he makes the announcement public? seems like he's not doing his due diligence.

here's one article... http://www.nypost.com/seven/05062009/po ... 167804.htm
go to town. have fun. denounce what is written in the article. i could care less.

i want an article where it shows that rush limbaugh paid off someone to get out of drug charges.
and i want articles listing all 400 times that karl rove lied.

i'm waiting with bated breath.
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby donnaplease » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:52 pm

fredinator wrote:
donnaplease wrote:
fredinator wrote:Oh for heaven's sake, DP, I was throwing some IDEAS out there, something that you cons never have. The prayer argument is weak, weak and lame. Is that argument still that children should recite a prayer in the morning or does it involve a moment a silence? Whatever it is, it doesn't belong in public schools. I don't believe in abortion either--for myself--but what other freaking ideas do YOU have, for those who don't have many options? Adoption? Some girls decide against adoption when the baby is born, then what? What happens if the baby has medical problems? A prayer then? Yeah, right, snort. Education/prevention is key for me.


Here's an idea... It's called TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for yourself! YOU educate your kids however you want, but keep your damned hands off mine! Fertility Pharmacy... Yeah, GREAT idea! :roll:

As for options, there are lots of options out there, and the ones that WANT to benefit from them, usually do.

p.s. Snorting is for pigs...


You are insane. Who are you talking about here ("the ones that WANT to benefit from them, usually do") that don't want to benefit from these options you speak of? That's right, I think I remember you saying once that you worked in a doctor's office and the patients on medicaid or welfare drove brand new cars, etc. Mmmmh hmmmm. I bet your mouth just started to water when I used the term, "fertility pharmacy"; something to really hang your hat on, lol. Way to go, Rush.


If you don't know who I'm talking about, then you, my dear, are the insane one. But for the sake of argument, I'm referring to the ones who through whatever circumstances, find themselves pregnant, single, and poor. There are programs out there to help them, from the beginning, to try to make it work. They don't need to just rely on welfare to take care of them and their responsibilities. There are education programs that people can benefit from. There are other assistance programs that allow people to improve their situations, not just wallow in whatever handouts Uncle Sam is willing to give them. It doesn't work in every situation, I am aware of that, but at least the attempt to improve your life says a lot to me.

I could've been one of those statistics. I was engaged to be married in September, and in February I became pregnant. I was in somewhat of a rocky relationship, and the pregnancy was actually (IMO) a blessing in disguise in that it made me realize that I could not raise a child in that environment. I like to say 'I put the cart before the horse, then I shot the horse'. I left him before I had the baby. I could've had an abortion, but I chose not to. I could've applied for whatever welfare benefits were available to me as a single mother, but instead I went to work. I then became enrolled in a nursing program, while working in the evenings, to support myself and my son (with the help of my parents). I became a nurse, eventually married a wonderful man who has been a super father to my son (and the rest of our children), and now I'm here arguing politics and music with you folks.

There, I shared more personal information here, but I do that to show that although I'm no political powerhouse, my life experiences give me reason to speak out on certain things. So, Nancy (or is that Susie?), stop being a bitch, it's not very becoming.
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:57 pm

Rockindeano wrote:
Great idea, let's see how you feel about these fine Americans, okay?

Rush Limbaugh- Adamant about life in jail for drug use. oops, he gets caught, buys his way off and just forgets about it.

Larry Craig- republican from Idaho. Sucked off dude in the Minneapolis Airport. Comments?

Mark Foley
- GOP Rep from FL, had sex with 18 yr old male intern.

Scooter Libby
- Busted for "outing a CIA Agent."

Karl Rove
- Busted for firing US Attorney's for not going after law abiding Democrats. Also caught lying about another 400 times as well, but who's counting?

Dick Cheney- What exactly did he do right? Lied about WMD, lied about Iraq's connection to 9/11, enabled former companies to get rich off bullshit wars.

George W Bush- LOL

Sure there are lots of Dems that are bad apples too, but I want to hear you cast these fuckers in the fiery lake of Hell. Bet you won't do it?


Rush Limbaugh- Turd with a big mouth.
Larry Craig-So he is gay, he however did NOT suck off anyone in the airport...he was merely soliciting it. BIG difference. Hypocrite.
Mark Foley- Consensual sex between adults of age is not a crime. If the Libs find out you are busting on this you will lose you membership card! Now is he a hypocrite??? OH yeah!
Scooter Libby- And got punished for it.
Karl Rove-Has not been charged with a crime. He advised the President on the firings sure, THAT WAS HIS FUCKING JOB you idiot!
Dick Cheney- Not going to get into it, because you wouldn't believe anything I said, any reference I posted so why bother?
George W Bush- Same as Cheney.

As for being intellectually bankrupt, you are, you are following the Obama administration plan to a tee...when you have no ideas that anyone likes...blame the boogie man, in this case the Bush administration and the republicans.

Typical, and definitely a liberal view of things.

Notice how you NEVER attack ideas, only the people that espouse those ideas.

Notice how (MOST, but not not all) of use on the conservative side attack the ideas of President Obama, but never the man himself.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby Lula » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:07 am

it's unfortunate that some are surprised by taxes. of course the rebate is taxable. when you upgrade your cell phone you have to pay the price on the full retail value, not the trade in. shame some people were not aware, but this is real life.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:48 am

treetopovskaya wrote:what does "march" have to do with anything?

and let me ask you this: shouldn't the white house be checking the background on his nominees *before* he makes the announcement public? seems like he's not doing his due diligence.

here's one article... http://www.nypost.com/seven/05062009/po ... 167804.htm
go to town. have fun. denounce what is written in the article. i could care less.

i want an article where it shows that rush limbaugh paid off someone to get out of drug charges.
and i want articles listing all 400 times that karl rove lied.

i'm waiting with bated breath.


i brought up march because it isn't exactly current, as in today's headlines. neither is may, but it is closer, lol. not seeing anything that states half of the cabinet are tax cheats. charlie rangel is not a cabinet member. yeah, totally stupid to not know about the few- geithner and daschle, with geithner becoming a cabinet member. and there was hilda solis' husband, but he is not in the cabinet.

can't help you with rush or karl.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby treetopovskaya » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:10 am

Lula wrote:it's unfortunate that some are surprised by taxes. of course the rebate is taxable. when you upgrade your cell phone you have to pay the price on the full retail value, not the trade in. shame some people were not aware, but this is real life.


it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone.
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby Lula » Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:27 am

no it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone. car dealerships are private businesses as are cell companies. i don't get why people are surprised at taxes on retail merchandise. clearly the cash for clunkers stimulated the sell of cars for new car dealers and got some old junk off the roads. seems pretty good to me.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Barb » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:03 am

Lula wrote:no it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone. car dealerships are private businesses as are cell companies. i don't get why people are surprised at taxes on retail merchandise. clearly the cash for clunkers stimulated the sell of cars for new car dealers and got some old junk off the roads. seems pretty good to me.


This is getting tricky, though. The money they put up for the CFC program is tax money -- already been taxed once. Can they tax it again? Are they paying tax on the full price of the car before the $4500 or the net price after? :?
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby donnaplease » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:19 am

Lula wrote:
treetopovskaya wrote:what does "march" have to do with anything?

and let me ask you this: shouldn't the white house be checking the background on his nominees *before* he makes the announcement public? seems like he's not doing his due diligence.

here's one article... http://www.nypost.com/seven/05062009/po ... 167804.htm
go to town. have fun. denounce what is written in the article. i could care less.

i want an article where it shows that rush limbaugh paid off someone to get out of drug charges.
and i want articles listing all 400 times that karl rove lied.

i'm waiting with bated breath.


i brought up march because it isn't exactly current, as in today's headlines. neither is may, but it is closer, lol. not seeing anything that states half of the cabinet are tax cheats. charlie rangel is not a cabinet member. yeah, totally stupid to not know about the few- geithner and daschle, with geithner becoming a cabinet member. and there was hilda solis' husband, but he is not in the cabinet.

can't help you with rush or karl.


Not to get into you guys' argument, but there is a lot of crap said about GWB that isn't necessarily in the headlines of today either, but it doesn't stop it from getting said, with the blame for nearly everything getting dumped on him. BO doesn't seem to take responsibility for any of his failures, yet continues to think he can save the world because he is the annointed one. Not everything that goes wrong in DC can be traced back to Bush. And... if he has to take responsibility for things that happened 8 months into his first term, then by all means BO needs to stop whining about what he inherited.

As for cheats, I don't think they follow a particular party line necessarily. POLITICIANS are nearly all crooked to some extent. I don't think they can help it. I'm sure most don't start out that way, the game just gets to them. Unfortunately, I believe (and have since the beginning) that BO doesn't do things for the right reasons. His relationships with shady people just plain scare me.
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby fredinator » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:21 am

donnaplease wrote:
fredinator wrote:
donnaplease wrote:
fredinator wrote:Oh for heaven's sake, DP, I was throwing some IDEAS out there, something that you cons never have. The prayer argument is weak, weak and lame. Is that argument still that children should recite a prayer in the morning or does it involve a moment a silence? Whatever it is, it doesn't belong in public schools. I don't believe in abortion either--for myself--but what other freaking ideas do YOU have, for those who don't have many options? Adoption? Some girls decide against adoption when the baby is born, then what? What happens if the baby has medical problems? A prayer then? Yeah, right, snort. Education/prevention is key for me.


Here's an idea... It's called TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for yourself! YOU educate your kids however you want, but keep your damned hands off mine! Fertility Pharmacy... Yeah, GREAT idea! :roll:

As for options, there are lots of options out there, and the ones that WANT to benefit from them, usually do.

p.s. Snorting is for pigs...


You are insane. Who are you talking about here ("the ones that WANT to benefit from them, usually do") that don't want to benefit from these options you speak of? That's right, I think I remember you saying once that you worked in a doctor's office and the patients on medicaid or welfare drove brand new cars, etc. Mmmmh hmmmm. I bet your mouth just started to water when I used the term, "fertility pharmacy"; something to really hang your hat on, lol. Way to go, Rush.


If you don't know who I'm talking about, then you, my dear, are the insane one. But for the sake of argument, I'm referring to the ones who through whatever circumstances, find themselves pregnant, single, and poor. There are programs out there to help them, from the beginning, to try to make it work. They don't need to just rely on welfare to take care of them and their responsibilities. There are education programs that people can benefit from. There are other assistance programs that allow people to improve their situations, not just wallow in whatever handouts Uncle Sam is willing to give them. It doesn't work in every situation, I am aware of that, but at least the attempt to improve your life says a lot to me.

I could've been one of those statistics. I was engaged to be married in September, and in February I became pregnant. I was in somewhat of a rocky relationship, and the pregnancy was actually (IMO) a blessing in disguise in that it made me realize that I could not raise a child in that environment. I like to say 'I put the cart before the horse, then I shot the horse'. I left him before I had the baby. I could've had an abortion, but I chose not to. I could've applied for whatever welfare benefits were available to me as a single mother, but instead I went to work. I then became enrolled in a nursing program, while working in the evenings, to support myself and my son (with the help of my parents). I became a nurse, eventually married a wonderful man who has been a super father to my son (and the rest of our children), and now I'm here arguing politics and music with you folks.

There, I shared more personal information here, but I do that to show that although I'm no political powerhouse, my life experiences give me reason to speak out on certain things. So, Nancy (or is that Susie?), stop being a bitch, it's not very becoming.


You know, you have an uncanny way of turning every discussion back to yourself--your martyrdom, your wonderful marriage, your divine gifts because you are such a wonderful person, yaddy, yaddy. Good for you--great story--lots of women do what you did. That's what you should do.

Yes, I know exactly who you are talking about in your bigoted, stereotypical way. You would think you would have charity in your heart for others who don't have the gumption or ability you have to improve their situation. No, I am not naive about cheaters. Cheating is a part of human nature. I've got to run an errand and I just got bored with this so I am moving on. I suggest the next time you call me a bitch, look in the mirror first... Donna.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby donnaplease » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:21 am

Barb wrote:
Lula wrote:no it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone. car dealerships are private businesses as are cell companies. i don't get why people are surprised at taxes on retail merchandise. clearly the cash for clunkers stimulated the sell of cars for new car dealers and got some old junk off the roads. seems pretty good to me.


This is getting tricky, though. The money they put up for the CFC program is tax money -- already been taxed once. Can they tax it again? Are they paying tax on the full price of the car before the $4500 or the net price after? :?


That should be in the contract that folks sign when they buy a vehicle, shouldn't it? No one is saying that they will have to claim that as income next year, are they? :?

Since they're not getting their reimbursement, I wonder how many dealers are still glad they participated in the program...
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby Eric » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:29 am

Barb wrote:
Lula wrote:no it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone. car dealerships are private businesses as are cell companies. i don't get why people are surprised at taxes on retail merchandise. clearly the cash for clunkers stimulated the sell of cars for new car dealers and got some old junk off the roads. seems pretty good to me.


This is getting tricky, though. The money they put up for the CFC program is tax money -- already been taxed once. Can they tax it again? Are they paying tax on the full price of the car before the $4500 or the net price after? :?


I got $10,000 in rebates on a Grand Cherokee last December and had to pay sales tax on the rebates. $825!
Eric
Eric
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3934
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:51 am

Postby donnaplease » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:30 am

fredinator wrote:
You know, you have an uncanny way of turning every discussion back to yourself--your martyrdom, your wonderful marriage, your divine gifts because you are such a wonderful person, yaddy, yaddy. Good for you--great story--lots of women do what you did. That's what you should do.

Yes, I know exactly who you are talking about in your bigoted, stereotypical way. You would think you would have charity in your heart for others who don't have the gumption or ability you have to improve their situation. No, I am not naive about cheaters. Cheating is a part of human nature. I've got to run an errand and I just got bored with this so I am moving on. I suggest the next time you call me a bitch, look in the mirror first... Donna.


Of course, it's all about me. 8)

I do agree with one thing. You're not naive, Susie. Good luck in your errand, hope you're not waiting too long in that line for your check. Oh, and they say gubament cheez isn't really all that bad. :roll:
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby donnaplease » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:31 am

Eric wrote:
Barb wrote:
Lula wrote:no it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone. car dealerships are private businesses as are cell companies. i don't get why people are surprised at taxes on retail merchandise. clearly the cash for clunkers stimulated the sell of cars for new car dealers and got some old junk off the roads. seems pretty good to me.


This is getting tricky, though. The money they put up for the CFC program is tax money -- already been taxed once. Can they tax it again? Are they paying tax on the full price of the car before the $4500 or the net price after? :?


I got $10,000 in rebates on a Grand Cherokee last December and had to pay sales tax on the rebates. $825!


I guess that would be considered a pretty good deal! :D
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby Eric » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:56 am

donnaplease wrote:
Eric wrote:
Barb wrote:
Lula wrote:no it's not a government program to upgrade your cell phone. car dealerships are private businesses as are cell companies. i don't get why people are surprised at taxes on retail merchandise. clearly the cash for clunkers stimulated the sell of cars for new car dealers and got some old junk off the roads. seems pretty good to me.


This is getting tricky, though. The money they put up for the CFC program is tax money -- already been taxed once. Can they tax it again? Are they paying tax on the full price of the car before the $4500 or the net price after? :?


I got $10,000 in rebates on a Grand Cherokee last December and had to pay sales tax on the rebates. $825!


I guess that would be considered a pretty good deal! :D


Yeah..actually the sticker on it was $35,400 and I got it for $18,900. Not only does it get only 16/20 in gas, but it was an '08 model left in December....so they were giving them away. Great vehicle though....even has heated seats. Need the AWD up here too. The next week I could have gotten the same deal AND 0%...I chose rebates over the 0%.
Eric
Eric
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3934
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 12:51 am

Postby Barb » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:21 am

Getting back to the double tax on CFC program.....


Posted by Karl Denninger in Consumer at 13:11

Government (And Car Dealers) Hose You Again
This is hilarious:

But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.

"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.

The amusement here is how most (if not all) states compute sales tax (charged when you register the vehicle.)

When you buy a new car you pay tax on the difference between the new car's purchase price and the trade-in you present to the dealer. This is an intentional distortion in the law that is intended to favor dealers over private-party used car sales; if you sell your used car privately the new buyer pays sales tax but you do not get the offset on the purchase of your replacement vehicle - the only way to get that is to trade the car.

Dealers use this, of course, in negotiations, effectively pocketing the sales tax - and why not? It's a real difference to you!

But the "cash for clunkers" is not a trade-in. That's a $4,500 check from the government, basically.

So you get nailed at least once and possibly twice. Specifically, you pay sales tax on the full vehicle price (effectively paying sales tax on the $4,500!) and what's worse those states that tax income (that would be most of them!) might wind up counting this as income for state income tax purposes too, effectively taxing you twice.

I should have probably done a Ticker on this originally, but I (naively) believed that most people understood how the tax system works when it comes to new and used car transactions. Apparently, from the referenced news article, this is not the case, and I bet the car dealers, incredibly ethical people that they are, were fully informing their suckers, er, clients of this little "feature" of that government handout too.

PS: I have also received several emails informing me that dealers had customers so giddy over the "free cash" that they were selling cars at full sticker price besides - effectively, in many cases, turning the entire "cash for clunkers" money into pure dealership profit and managing to charge you tax (twice) on it as well. Ain't car dealers grand (several grand out of your pocket, that is!)

http://market-ticker.org/archives/1371- ... Again.html
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby treetopovskaya » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:19 pm

kennedycare?

seriously?

how manipulating would this be??? hope it's just a joke.

if it should pass name it whatever you want but to use the death of tk as a tool to get your health care plan passed is...

no words.
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby RedWingFan » Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:46 pm

Glen Beck exposed Van Jones, one of Barack Obama's unconstitutional appointed "Tzars".

This is the real Barack Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgmwyfKuL8
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Lula » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:51 am

not that any of you will watch this cartoon for health care reform, but here it is anyway-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jng4TnKqy6A
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Lula » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:53 am

you know i've watched glenn beck the last few days and he scares me, plain and simple.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby AlteredDNA » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:09 am

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

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

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
I Love Pineapple!!!
User avatar
AlteredDNA
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:08 am
Location: Baton Rouge

Postby Barb » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:14 am

Lula wrote:you know i've watched glenn beck the last few days and he scares me, plain and simple.


Glenn Beck has no power over your life. He is not the one who needs to be feared.
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby Barb » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:51 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Lula wrote:you know i've watched glenn beck the last few days and he scares me, plain and simple.


Boo!

Though a little scandal might alienate advertisers, it’s pure ratings gold. Last night Glenn Beck had over 3 million viewers at 5pm, second only to O’Reilly for the night. But, Beck had more 25-54 viewers than O’Reilly (888K to 876K). I don’t watch or really even care about the cable news wars, but still…wow. Even though Beck airs before primetime, when there are fewer people watching TV, he had the most 25-54 viewers in the cable news world for the night.


5PM – P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
Glenn Beck– 3,040,000 viewers (888,000) (1,385,000)
Situation Room—688,000 viewers (141,000) (271,000)
Hardball w/ Chris Matthews—536,000 viewers (139,000) (217,000)
Fast Money—215,000 viewers (55,000) (80,000)
Prime News–267,000 viewers (97,000) (109,000)




Love these guys and their stupid boycotts. I heard sales for Whole Food are up too. How DARE their CEO have a different opinion than the Won on healthcare? I mean, what does he know about business that Obama doesn't? ;)
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby Lula » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:52 am

beck's ratings don't mean anything to me other than fear others will be influenced by his twisted view of reality and act upon his crazed comments.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby Barb » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:58 am

Lula wrote:beck's ratings don't mean anything to me other than fear others will be influenced by his twisted view of reality and act upon his crazed comments.


No one has disputed any of the facts he has brought forth. In fact, the Whitehouse's only concern was that he referred to someone as a Czar who isn't really a czar, but just a special advisor.

I have no freaking idea if Glenn is right in how he is connecting these dots or not, but it does bother me that the POTUS has so many associations with self proclaimed communists, anti capitalists and anti Americans.

There is something not right about Barack Obama and the country is starting to feel that. His poll numbers are going down with remarkable speed and you can't attribute that to Glenn Beck alone.
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby Lula » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:12 am

i don't attribute obama's polls numbers diving to glenn beck, that would validate his insanity. i attribute the numbers to obama not really getting anything done and it's his own party's fault. health care reform can be put through, yet the dems are too busy fighting amongst themselves. politics as usual.
User avatar
Lula
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4561
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: santa monica

Postby RedWingFan » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:34 am

Lula wrote:i don't attribute obama's polls numbers diving to glenn beck, that would validate his insanity. i attribute the numbers to obama not really getting anything done and it's his own party's fault. health care reform can be put through, yet the dems are too busy fighting amongst themselves. politics as usual.

Did Barb's mentioning of Obama's confidants and staff being "self proclaimed communists, anti-capitalists and anti-American" really just blow right by you?

Kind of funny with you being such a moderate and all!! You didn't even miss a beat complaining that Obama and the Democrats were failing at seizing more of your FREEDOM by not passing "health care reform"!! :roll:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby hoagiepete » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:37 am

Lula wrote:beck's ratings don't mean anything to me other than fear others will be influenced by his twisted view of reality and act upon his crazed comments.


I don't listen to him much, but how is he "twisted and crazed"? I've missed all this recent stuff about him.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby Barb » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:42 am

hoagiepete wrote:
Lula wrote:beck's ratings don't mean anything to me other than fear others will be influenced by his twisted view of reality and act upon his crazed comments.


I don't listen to him much, but how is he "twisted and crazed"? I've missed all this recent stuff about him.


Glenn is either going off the deep end with regard to his apocolyptic prophecies about the future of the U.S. under the Obama administration or he is right, and we're headed for some scary, scary times.
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Postby Barb » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:43 am

Lula wrote:i don't attribute obama's polls numbers diving to glenn beck, that would validate his insanity. i attribute the numbers to obama not really getting anything done and it's his own party's fault. health care reform can be put through, yet the dems are too busy fighting amongst themselves. politics as usual.


A poll I saw this week showed only 23% would support the Dems forcing this bill through on their own. I don't think his numbers are going down because they are NOT pushing through healthcare, but just the opposite -- the fear that they will.
Barb
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:55 pm
Location: Nor Cal

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests