PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone fear that the internet...




dax702
02-05-2008, 10:00 PM
Does anyone fear that the internet will be attempted to be taken away from us because of the "threat" RP and we have posed? Assuming Paul doesn't become President, the people "in charge" will have to know that we are all fired up and organizing on the internet for the long haul to make sure the Constitutional candidate in 4 years does win.. I fear they will try to take the internet away, somehow, and then it will be back to hitting the streets, which isn't bad, but you get my point...

Wells
02-05-2008, 10:01 PM
I do

Greenskin
02-05-2008, 10:02 PM
America doesn't own the internet

josh24601
02-05-2008, 10:03 PM
You mean the threat of dominating 5-10% of Republican primaries?

I know where you are going with all of that, and it's good to be alert.

But don't get carried away just yet.

tangent4ronpaul
02-05-2008, 10:03 PM
They have already tried to regulate speech on the Internet and have had some success, unfortunately.

-n

jackbid
02-05-2008, 10:04 PM
Unless there is some genius who can devise a way to control the internet, or if Rupert Murdoch buys off all the ISPs in the world, only then we would lose the FREEDOM of the internet...

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:05 PM
I know we don't own the internet but there are countries, for example North Korea which block whatever content they want from reaching their people. Of course this from outside that country coming in. I don't know how or if the US could block us. Under something like HR 1955 or something similar, we could be labeled anti US, or something extreme like that, who knows....I don't put anything past the gov't anymore.

Wolf
02-05-2008, 10:06 PM
People won't stand for that.

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:07 PM
The threat meaning, people having their blindfolds lifted and reverting back to everything in the Constitution. All of the "ron paul cured my apathy" people have essentially been awakened from being brainwashed. The internet has been our vehicle for spreading the word for the most part.

Joseph Hart
02-05-2008, 10:09 PM
Government will control NET2.0 (its a bill that says the government will own all the servers for the North American internet)
We will be washed away. Black bagged. Destroyed.

Ron2Win
02-05-2008, 10:09 PM
It's called Net Neutrality.

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:10 PM
Well, I fear something like that and think it's a very real possibility. We should start thinking about how to organize the rEVOLution in the event that that happens.

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:11 PM
Joseph, can you provide more info on what you said (applicable links, etc)

Patriot123
02-05-2008, 10:12 PM
It all ready has been. Something similar to the Net Neutrality Act was slipped into that bill that promised to fix the recession. So now the NSA, or rather AT&T specifically are about to take control of the entire net.

fedup100
02-05-2008, 10:12 PM
After this election the real tyranny will begin in earnest. The internet will be so changed in a year, you will not know it. First it will be filtered and then changed where you will pay big bucks for time usage and then it will be private and then gone. The internet is too dangerous for this last leg of the trip from freedom to tyranny.....they really don't want that part on youtube.

I for one can't wait for the the ignorant blue hairs and brain deads to get it between the eye's, they so deserve it. To the rest of you that don't, I am so sorry for what you will have to endure to survive. Look to God now......it's on

Thanehand
02-05-2008, 10:13 PM
Yes, and it won't be just the internet.

You thought $2,300 limit of McCain-Fiengold was bad? Now that McCain realizes that 50,000 people can donate $100 and pose a serious threat, I won't be surprised to see that noose tightened right up after this election.

GryphonsClaw
02-05-2008, 10:14 PM
Lookup Senator Ted Stevens with the Net Neutrality on You Tube. They will try to pass this because they must realize that the people are getting a voice and they cannot control that voice. The day that law passes is the day I'm moving overseas.

WedgeTalon
02-05-2008, 10:15 PM
Will they try to "ruin" the internet for us? Yes.

Will it be specifically in retaliation to Ron Paul? Unlikely.

They've been trying for a while to bring the internet to heel, with some successes and some failures. This is why Paul is so strongly against internet regulation, even when it is seemingly beneficial, because allowing the government to regulate any inch of the internet invites them to try to do even more. :(

Xyrus2
02-05-2008, 10:16 PM
People won't stand for that.

Oh yeah. They won't stand for it. They won't stand for taking away their freedoms either. Or having their government engage in torture. Or have their government start unprovoked wars.

No way. People are way to smart for that.

And if you believe that, I actually shit bars of solid gold.

People already live in a cage. If you want to motivate people, you take away their TV. At this point, I'm convinced that the government could gun down all the Ron Paul supporters as terrorists and most people wouldn't even think twice about it.

~X~

iiguns
02-05-2008, 10:16 PM
I give it a few years, then just like that. Filters that will limit what we can read and see.

icon124
02-05-2008, 10:20 PM
I think as this first generation becomes the middle aged and then older gereration the internet would have 3 generations with all of this information...to the US that can't happen and they realize this, so I do think the internet will be stopped before we get more generations involved

humanic
02-05-2008, 10:21 PM
It's called Net Neutrality.

Doesn't Ron oppose Net Neutrality?

Dr.3D
02-05-2008, 10:22 PM
People won't stand for that.

What would they do to stop it from happening? NOTHING! There is nothing people could do to stop it.

Dr.3D
02-05-2008, 10:23 PM
Doesn't Ron oppose Net Neutrality?

Yes he does! Net neutrality is just the opposite of what the name implies.

Chester Copperpot
02-05-2008, 10:24 PM
Does anyone fear that the internet will be attempted to be taken away from us because of the "threat" RP and we have posed? Assuming Paul doesn't become President, the people "in charge" will have to know that we are all fired up and organizing on the internet for the long haul to make sure the Constitutional candidate in 4 years does win.. I fear they will try to take the internet away, somehow, and then it will be back to hitting the streets, which isn't bad, but you get my point...

absolutely no doubt

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:25 PM
Wow, this thread I started exploded into 3 pages pretty damn quick... This is serious.

zach
02-05-2008, 10:30 PM
If the government can arrest people for having a "suspicious (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/2/135553/9463/914/429271)" face, then they can censor the Internet.

Thing is, a lot of people probably won't realize it because it will be a slow process of filtering, and if they do, then it will be too late.
It's just a speculation though.

Goldwater Conservative
02-05-2008, 10:32 PM
You mean the threat of dominating 5-10% of Republican primaries?

And 20% of the GOP youth vote. Paul is very popular with the actual future of the party.


Wow, this thread I started exploded into 3 pages pretty damn quick... This is serious.

It's one for me. I have my settings so that I get 40 posts per page. Makes it a lot easier, I think. :)

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:32 PM
Yes the government is damn good at doing things without people realizing it as we all know.

bcreps85
02-05-2008, 10:32 PM
I said this a long time ago, and subsequently there has already been a bill proposed for it suggesting that government isn't doing enough to protect people on the internet from terrorists and other people with radical ideas...

It's coming.

I fear this revolution will end with violence.

Redcard
02-05-2008, 10:39 PM
Exactly what threat did we pose?

They said we weren't big when we were spamming their polls online.. and we proved it today. This is so much like the Nader campaign it's not even funny, and they didn't feel a threat then.

Zolah
02-05-2008, 10:39 PM
Yes he does! Net neutrality is just the opposite of what the name implies.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength

dax702
02-05-2008, 10:42 PM
We posed a big enough thread to be IGNORED by the media. If Paul had gotten the same amount of attention and coverage as the other candidates, this thing would be the other way around simply because most Americans get their news from the mainstream.

Patriot123
02-05-2008, 10:43 PM
Oh yeah. They won't stand for it. They won't stand for taking away their freedoms either. Or having their government engage in torture. Or have their government start unprovoked wars.

No way. People are way to smart for that.

And if you believe that, I actually shit bars of solid gold.

People already live in a cage. If you want to motivate people, you take away their TV. At this point, I'm convinced that the government could gun down all the Ron Paul supporters as terrorists and most people wouldn't even think twice about it.

~X~

Exactly how Germany had the word "Nazi" slapped in front of it. The masses were too brainwashed to care. They believed what they were told... because they were promised permadent hope. By Hitler.

scotto2008
02-05-2008, 10:48 PM
I've often thought that subversives such as ourselves should have some kind of backup plan in case of a "terrorist" attack on the net infrastructure. Maybe an emergency database of cell phone numbers. Of course, that could fall into the wrong hands.

If you think I'm paranoid, remember what old whats-his-name said, "Paranoia is the least of our worries."

tropicangela
02-05-2008, 10:49 PM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112907J.shtml

notagain
02-05-2008, 10:54 PM
Yes, they will do everything they can to limit free press. Just think about it, internet=Ron Paul.

sajorojas
02-05-2008, 11:06 PM
I fear this revolution will end with violence.

What does everyone think of that statement? If it came down to that, would you be willing to literally fight for your freedom?

dax702
02-06-2008, 03:04 AM
If it came down to that, I would be more than willing to fight for my freedom. Just think about it - WE could be the ones America will be talking about 100 years from now. We're modern day founding fathers fighting against the Machine. It's noble and I would feel like a coward if I continued to have "ah fuck it" attitude....

rice_classic
02-06-2008, 03:14 AM
*runs out and buys guns*

Agent CSL
02-06-2008, 03:24 AM
Yes, they are going to take the internet away. Net neutrality bills, increasing paranoia about "homegrown terrorists" (see: anonymous). One way or another they will find a way.

First they will filter it for copyrighted materials.
Then they will restrict access to certain sites for "homegrown terrorism" or "terrorist propaganda"
Then they will restrict access to certain sites for "conspiracy threats" or "threats against the state"
Then they will restrict access to certain sites for not paying the 'Web 2.0 Tax'
Then they will restrict access to your emails for not paying the 'email tax'
Then they will scan the internet for "keywords" (some say they already do this)
You will be left with MSM and big media websites.

It's going to happen whether we rise up or not, that I can guarantee. So print off all you can and store books of information.

Highstreet
02-06-2008, 03:37 AM
Does anyone fear that the internet will be attempted to be taken away from us because of the "threat" RP and we have posed? Assuming Paul doesn't become President, the people "in charge" will have to know that we are all fired up and organizing on the internet for the long haul to make sure the Constitutional candidate in 4 years does win.. I fear they will try to take the internet away, somehow, and then it will be back to hitting the streets, which isn't bad, but you get my point...

I don't fear it.

I know it will happen. Net Neutrality has already become a back door Democrat idea. They are selling it to their sheep as the only way to protect the users from the big bad internet providers.

dax702
02-06-2008, 03:49 AM
maybe the rest of America will wake up when they're precious internet is threatened!

Highstreet
02-06-2008, 04:10 AM
maybe the rest of America will wake up when they're precious internet is threatened!

No one will threaten it.

They will sell it to us for $50 more per month because of the regulations to protect us from the Homegrown Terrorists.

It will be another small step in the wrong direction, but not enough people will make a stink about it because the frog is already boiling. It's not long before we are all cooked.

MrZach
02-06-2008, 04:12 AM
Does anyone fear that the internet will be attempted to be taken away from us because of the "threat" RP and we have posed? Assuming Paul doesn't become President, the people "in charge" will have to know that we are all fired up and organizing on the internet for the long haul to make sure the Constitutional candidate in 4 years does win.. I fear they will try to take the internet away, somehow, and then it will be back to hitting the streets, which isn't bad, but you get my point...

The internet isn't the worry. The term "homegrown terrorists" is the worry... Once you start slinging that one around, you can apply it to anyone who "opposes" the government (Jefferson) and next thing you know they all lose their rights and are treated as enemy combatants with no civil liberties whatsoever...

The internet won't be "taken away" - everything else will first...

Holly
02-06-2008, 04:18 AM
Below is quoted from the full article here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JES20080202&articleId=7980


As far as the Pentagon is concerned the internet is not all bad, after all, it was the Department of Defense through DARPA that gave us the internet in the first place. The internet is useful not only as a business tool but also is excellent for monitoring and tracking users, acclimatizing people to a virtual world, and developing detailed psychological profiles of every user, among many other Pentagon positives. But, one problem with the current internet is the potential for the dissemination of ideas and information not consistent with US government themes and messages, commonly known as free speech. Naturally, since the plan was to completely dominate the "infosphere," the internet would have to be adjusted or replaced with an upgraded and even more Pentagon friendly successor.

Holly
02-06-2008, 04:32 AM
It's going to happen whether we rise up or not, that I can guarantee. So print off all you can and store books of information.


I've already started. The problem though is going to be how to get some kind of accurate picture of current news and editorials that haven't been filtered or manipulated.

bcreps85
02-06-2008, 04:40 AM
What does everyone think of that statement? If it came down to that, would you be willing to literally fight for your freedom?

Best case scenario, it never comes to that. If it did though, we wouldn't have a choice, because by that time we will no longer have the right to leave the country at our own accord, and even if we did it is likely that the globalists will have made achievements outside of the US, and anywhere we run will largely be the same anyway.

The only choice will be to fight or give up all your freedoms and live in an Orwellian society. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Guns are the last straw. Once those are taken away there is no way to fight back and gun owners recognize this.

Rynx
02-06-2008, 05:22 AM
I would be more than willing to fight back.
This is our freedom we're talking about.
It's in times like these that I'm proud of all my first person shooter training.


Also, if and when the internet gets trafficked, the Ron Paul Revolution will have died.
There'll be no way to organize any kind of plan for a coming revolution.
Except possibly through radio waves or television station.
I think we should have a money bomb so that Ron Paul can purchase his own radio tower.

sajorojas
02-06-2008, 07:01 PM
What does everyone think of that statement? If it came down to that, would you be willing to literally fight for your freedom?

Bump because I'm still curious

Paulitician
02-06-2008, 07:10 PM
I don't "fear" anything but I don't buy into the hope that the Internet will be our savior. The MSM will still have their enormous power--the only thing that will happen is a techonological shift. Yes, it might be a little easier to expose their propaganda, but I think most people will be too lazy/sheepish to care.

therealjjj77
02-06-2008, 07:16 PM
You mean the threat of dominating 5-10% of Republican primaries?

I know where you are going with all of that, and it's good to be alert.

But don't get carried away just yet.

It will be a much larger amount if we spend the next 4 years setting up meetings in our towns once a week to study the Constitution. Take donations and do paper ads. Get the word out and unplug people from their TVs.

RPinUptownChi
02-06-2008, 07:52 PM
--

scotto2008
02-06-2008, 08:39 PM
The first battle in modern warfare is to take out the enemy's communications.

If there were a "terrorist" attack that took down the Internet, would the government itself be hobbled?

After the People took over Arpanet, did the goverment create an alternate system with nationwide coverage?

thuja
02-06-2008, 08:43 PM
there IS a threat, and i read about it on www.globalresearch.ca, probably in the pol state category.

CorkyAgain
02-06-2008, 09:10 PM
Does anyone fear that the internet will be attempted to be taken away from us because of the "threat" RP and we have posed? Assuming Paul doesn't become President, the people "in charge" will have to know that we are all fired up and organizing on the internet for the long haul to make sure the Constitutional candidate in 4 years does win.. I fear they will try to take the internet away, somehow, and then it will be back to hitting the streets, which isn't bad, but you get my point...

Yes, this is a very real possibility. Hillary is probably going to be our next President, and she's expressed concern about some of the viewpoints expressed on the net. Being a true statist, her solution will be to impose regulations and restrictions in order to protect us from "hate speech" and other "extremism".

In a battle between two centrists, Hillary beats McCain because most Democrats will vote for anyone with (D) after their name. They value party more than principle. Conservative Republicans, otoh, will abstain or vote third party rather than vote for someone who has betrayed their principles the way McCain often has. In any case, McCain-Feingold already tells us what McCain thinks about free speech, so if he were somehow to get elected President, it's easy to predict that he would want to regulate the Internet too.

:(

roshi
02-06-2008, 09:25 PM
Is there a possibility of the internet being "down"? Yes:

1. Shut down root name servers (not really bringing down the internet, but it will cause huge headaches).

The root name servers are used to translate domains to IP addresses. If the root name servers are taken down, all .com, .net, .org, etc will be down. But you can still connect to websites via IP addresses (which most people do not know how to do).

I also want to comment on the part where people are afraid of filters. You can simply bypass these by using SSL, so that nobody but the other site and yourself can see whatever you see as it is encrypted and would take months to decrypt it entirely and accurately. Proxies are also a great idea to bypass filters.

LynnB
02-06-2008, 09:35 PM
I would suggest that people who are unaware of the internet situation, ie. h.r. 1955, are also unaware of several other issues/crises facing the American people. You need to keep an eye on sites such as globalresearch.ca and judicialwatch.org, among others. The only reason why they have gotten away with so much is because we've been asleep with our eyes open, watching pre-packaged disinfo on Fox News, etc.

Bubba
02-06-2008, 09:43 PM
We need to call Al Gore ASAP. He's got the manual!!!

CorkyAgain
02-06-2008, 09:46 PM
It frightens and saddens me that so many of you sound so ready to use your guns in anger.

I watched the movie "Gandhi" again last night. There's a scene where Margaret Bourke-White asks Gandhi whether his non-violent strategy would be effective against someone like Hitler. Gandhi nodded sadly and admitted that there will be many defeats. But he added that history shows that there have been many tyrants in the world and every one of them fell eventually. Truth endures.

We cannot defeat the Enemy with weapons, because He outguns us a millionfold. We can defeat him by upholding the Good and by refusing to become Evil ourselves.

As long as there are people who recognize cruelty and tyranny for what it is, there is reason for hope. It might be only a tiny Remnant for a while, but that sense of decency is something to protect and nurture. I will do my part by trying to keep it alive in myself and in my children.
.

Abyss
02-06-2008, 10:57 PM
Was the american revolution won through peaceful truth?

Sometimes you have to get physical. It always boils down to agressive encounteres before real changes are made anyway.

The Machine
02-07-2008, 12:13 AM
It frightens and saddens me that so many of you sound so ready to use your guns in anger.

I watched the movie "Gandhi" again last night. There's a scene where Margaret Bourke-White asks Gandhi whether his non-violent strategy would be effective against someone like Hitler. Gandhi nodded sadly and admitted that there will be many defeats. But he added that history shows that there have been many tyrants in the world and every one of them fell eventually. Truth endures.

We cannot defeat the Enemy with weapons, because He outguns us a millionfold. We can defeat him by upholding the Good and by refusing to become Evil ourselves.

As long as there are people who recognize cruelty and tyranny for what it is, there is reason for hope. It might be only a tiny Remnant for a while, but that sense of decency is something to protect and nurture. I will do my part by trying to keep it alive in myself and in my children.
.

I don't get the impression that "so many of you sound so ready to use your guns in anger"; I think you might be reading too much into it. Pacifism and diplomacy are a good start and work to a point.

The authors of the Bill of Rights were intelligent and insightful, among other things. If they thought Pacifism was the solution, maybe the Second Ammendment would have wording such as "The right to bear signs and baskets of fruit"--it doesn't!

The American Indians were very peaceful and accommodating to the first Europeans--don't be fooled if you were taught otherwise--and the fruits of their efforts amounted to the largest, most down-played, mass genocide that the world has witnessed. Guess what? The Europeans had guns and germs to do their bidding. Eventually, the Indians obtained the same weapons and became resistant to the germs--so the playing field was leveled somewhat--and some of their race survived. If the Indians didn't resist, some still would have survived, living a life of servatude. Instead, they were allowed life on the reservation; almost, but not quite as bad.

I am just trying to give you another perspective on the subject of defending liberty. The biggest threat to the establishment right now, is the ability of freedom and liberty loving people to communicate (internet) and defend (guns) themselves. That is what these folks are referencing in this thread...I think. Some people choose to take an alternative approach to self-preservation; i.e. liberty. I certainly respect your liberty and view points as well.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to take your kids to the firing range and teach them gun safety...just in case you change your mind.

RonRules
02-07-2008, 12:16 AM
Watch out for IPTV. Joost TV is one example. It's a program that takes over your computer, no need for a browser, no possibility to enter a web address, no user generated content.

Tracks everything you do, online.

All pre-programmed for your enjoyment!

RPinUptownChi
02-07-2008, 05:19 AM
--

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 05:30 AM
Didn't a number of undersea cables feeding internet service to the middle east just get accidentally cut?

hummm.....

thuja
02-07-2008, 05:55 AM
do we have to resume letter writing and depend upon each other to deliver that mail, since the post office may just be too busy checking on us and our mail to be tusted to deliver it?

i must be getting hysterical, excuse me.

sajorojas
02-07-2008, 12:57 PM
Didn't a number of undersea cables feeding internet service to the middle east just get accidentally cut?

hummm.....

Yes, about four undersea cables that were hundreds of miles apart were mysteriously cut recently. Many countries have lost all internet access. But surely it was an accident. Even though these cables are some of the strongest and most resilient on the planet.

4RPinKC
02-07-2008, 02:34 PM
This thread was just posted on a message board where I have been trying to convince folks Ron Paul is not nuts. Thanks alot for all the help you all are giving the sane Paul supporters who are trying to won over undecided voters.

CorkyAgain
02-07-2008, 03:51 PM
This thread was just posted on a message board where I have been trying to convince folks Ron Paul is not nuts. Thanks alot for all the help you all are giving the sane Paul supporters who are trying to won over undecided voters.

Here's what you tell them if they're worried about that:

Ron Paul isn't nuts, but some of his supporters are. :D

Liberty is for everyone, including the nuts, as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights.

One of the more disturbing trends in our society is the tendency to use the "paranoid conspiracy theory" label to marginalize and forestall any discussion of possible threats to our liberty. Now legislators are considering laws that will legally brand any such discussion as subversive, and will subject the participants to surveillance and possible imprisonment. As the old saying goes "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Instead of acting ashamed of the "nuts" in the RP camp and trying to read them out of the movement, perhaps you should be explaining to your listeners what the government is doing that's provoking the "nut's" to react the way they are.

Dennis Peterson
02-08-2008, 12:35 PM
Do you guys have the faintest clue what Net Neutrality is?

It's the idea that internet packets all get passed through without prejudice. No filtering, no charging extra to visit certain websites, no special high-speed routing for FOXNews.com, none of that.

If you'd rather have the major media we all know and love fiddling with the Internet, then go ahead, oppose net neutrality. They do.

Outfits like AT&T would love to be able to filter networks. They'd love to extort extra money from Google for the bandwidth it's already paying for. They'd love to sell you a cheap internet connection that gives you access to 200 media sites, and a more expensive one with 2000, and make you pay through the nose for unlimited.

Why not? It's their lines, right?

Network neutrality is nothing other than the principle the Internet was designed around. Now the telecoms and media companies are trying to change that, so they can regain control. And they're doing their level best to convince everybody that network neutrality is the opposite of what it really is - the only guarantee of free speech we have left.

Try to see through their propaganda. An internet-based grassroots political movement opposing network neutrality is about the most self-destructive thing I can think of.

(Now, if they pass a bill that calls itself Net Neutrality but does the opposite, that's another matter. But why would they bother - right now, AT&T can play all those games I mentioned, and it would be perfectly legal. They haven't done it much, yet, but they're starting to.)