Yes. And the “Internet Kill Switch” characterization of it Prisonlpanet and similar extremist infotainment sources put out is about as accurate and truthful as the “death panel” buzzword used against Health Care legislation. The reality and truth is so far removed from the horseshit they are peddling, it insults anyone’s intelligence who bothers to look a half inch past the end of their self-indulgent, biased noses.
Basically, if you honestly believe that the Government doesn’t have in place a means to use this choke point if it needs to, then I have some beachfront property in Las Vegas that you might find interesting.
Hint: Whenever someone jumps off protesting that there’s nothing to worry about, the smart people get concerned and the sheep simply believe.
It’s right there for you in black and white, from the same site you cited.
Perhaps before you challenge me you should, like, do your homework.
That’s only for skilled workers and professionals, Le Jacquelope. There are other classes of immigrants. This thread is really turning into a magnet for nonsense.
What I honestly don’t believe is that you have the slightest clue about how the Internet infrastructure operates at the technical and functional levels, or not as the case may be. If your cite from theatlantic.com suggests anything different about what control the U.S. government supposedly exercises over various portions of the Internet, I’m all ears. In all reality, they exercise about as much control over the corporate entities who actually control the Internet as they did over the banks and insurance companies that sent the economy into a tailspin a few years ago.
Yeah, I’m real worried about that. :rolleyes:
Dope motto!
Er, I mean, band name!
And that’s only for unemployed skilled workers and professionals. From the next line after the chart showing the amount you need:
*You do not have to show that you have these funds if you have arranged employment in Canada.
*
But if you’re unemployed you will need those funds. Which is exactly my point! :rolleyes:
That may have been what you meant, but not what you said. There was no mention of unemployment in moving to Canada. You said:
*First a lot of people will need to rob banks to get out of the United States.
Canada requires you prove you have $11,000 in assets to be allowed in. *
When in fact Canada requires you have $11,000 in assets if you are unemployed. That’s a significant difference.
What I honestly don’t believe is that you have the slightest clue about what the word ‘Government’ means. What it means in this case is that they can send people in and shut that whole building down. And declare a state of emergency to expedite it, if necessary. If that building gets shut down, what happens to international Internet communications?
Yes, I know you believe that Terremark (and Google’s emerging equivalent in NY) is a sovereign nation and nothing can touch them. Go have fun with that. It can still be shut down at nary a moment’s notice, and that would wreak havoc on the Internet.
It’s downright foolish to ask “can the Government killswitch the U.S. internet with ease”. They can, without any internet killswitch bill. The only question is, what would make them do it.
In the future you should state your point ahead of time. Neither you nor the poster you were responding to said anything about employment. It looks more like you were just plain wrong.
Then I shall clarify. If you have no job this is a barrier for you. Which is a double pain in the ass if you’re trying to get out of this declining mess of a country to a place with jobs. Which, for 16 million folks, ain’t America.
Wrapped with gold fringe, right?
CMC fnord!
The U.S. government certainly has some inherent power to send men with guns to physically seize the NAP of the Americas and shut it down or take it over. This is an inherent attribute of being a sovereign state; Sweden or New Zealand or Costa Rica could also send men with guns (even Costa Rica still has police) to seize a building or buildings located within their national territory. Even the Pope could send in the Swiss Guards.
That doesn’t make the U.S. a fascist state, though, it just makes it a state. If the U.S. took such an action without some darned good reason (someone has taken over the building and installed a giant laser beam and is demanding one million dollars or he’ll vaporize downtown Miami), the executive branch of the U.S. government would face popular protests and a media firestorm and lawsuits and, more importantly, some kind of rapidly forthcoming court order telling them to cut it the hell out. If the U.S. government ever gets to the point where it can do such things and just ignore the court orders (or more likely, no court orders are forthcoming, as the judges have all been replaced with “Patriotic Tribunals”) then we can talk about fascism.
I don’t like a lot of things the previous administration did in the name of the “War on Terror”, and some of the things they said they should be able to do were downright scary. (Note, though, that even Bush backed down at least partially when faced with adverse court decisions.) I don’t like the fact that Obama (whom I generally support) hasn’t gone as far as I think he ought to in reversing the previous administration’s bad policies. None of that means that the whole system is, like, Fascist, man! This sort of criticism doesn’t help the causes of civil liberties, human rights, or world peace; in fact, it hurts them, by making legitimate criticisms and legitimate fears seem overblown, lunatic fringe, or just downright childish.
What makes anyone think moving to Canada is an option?
Surely, if the USA became a fascist state, our new overlords wouldn’t hesitate to conquer Canada, would they?
Or am I supposed to believe the fascists running our government would have greater respect for borders than for the Constitution?
The third great military axiom is Never Start a Land War in Canada (or, possibly never bet with a Canadian when hockey is on the line…I can never remember). I think our new fascist overlords would do well to remember that and set our collective sights on Mexico instead…
-XT
Having dismissed this garbage about fascism, should we move on to the nonsense about Egypt?
Barack… Mubarak… Coincidence? I think not!!!
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Having dismissed this garbage about fascism, should we move on to the nonsense about Egypt?
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s all of a piece. We aren’t a fascist country, nor on the road to becoming one, popular wisdom and common knowledge to the contrary. And our situation isn’t remotely similar to what’s going on in Egypt…or vice versa. There is really no basis for comparison.
I suppose we might invade Canada, though, if we were having a really crappy day. Also, there might be some truth to the rich covertly scheming to starve the poor and out of work to death to cover their tracks in sending all of the jobs to other countries (if they didn’t starve the poor and unemployed we might notice…this way everyone is happy). Personally, though, I think that the real plot is code named Soylent Green, and involves the rich turning the poor into Taco Bell taco meat that has more than 35% ‘real meat’…
-XT
No. One’s an evil Ay-rab dictator who suppresses human rights and hates Israel, the other is the president of Egypt.