All Your Internets Are Belong to Obama

007bistromath wrote:

That is unalloyed bullshit. The way the word is used in the bill strongly suggests that its writers were working with the generic definition of the term, and that inclusion of the §5512 NREN (which I am near certain refers to a specific infrastructural network and not a template for experimental ones as you describe) in the definitions section was in error.

Do you have clue one how bills are written? They don't just slap definitions in there because they can.

I didn't pull anything out of my ass. I looked at the text of the bill, as well as that of the law it refers to in the definitions. How does your point still stand when the definition you are arguing is used intentionally makes the bill patent nonsense which cannot possibly accomplish any of the goals it describes? Whether you're right or wrong, this bill is a giant pile of shit.

007bistromath wrote:

I didn't pull anything out of my ass. I looked at the text of the bill, as well as that of the law it refers to in the definitions. How does your point still stand when the definition you are arguing is used intentionally makes the bill patent nonsense which cannot possibly accomplish any of the goals it describes? Whether you're right or wrong, this bill is a giant pile of shit.

CONGRESS CAN'T SHUT DOWN THEIR OWN INTERNET BUT THEY CAN CHANGE THE MEANINGS OF WORDS RANDOMLY.

OBVIOUSLY I AM IN THE WRONG.

Mafiosa wrote:

CONGRESS CAN'T SHUT DOWN THEIR OWN INTERNET BUT THEY CAN CHANGE THE MEANINGS OF WORDS RANDOMLY.

OBVIOUSLY I AM IN THE WRONG.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Do you have clue one how bills are written? They
don't just slap definitions in there because they can.

Amusingly enough, this does my arguing for me. Congress basically can change the meanings of words within a bill. That's what a definitions section is for. Your definition of an NREN is, as far as I could tell by looking at 5512, only tangentially related to that act's NREN.

I am not suggesting they did this just because. I'm suggesting they did this in error, because whoever wrote this and whatever committees it went through do not know what the fuck they are doing and/or are lazy. Considering everything else that this Congress has got into the news for so far, that wouldn't at all surprise me.

007bistromath wrote:

I am not suggesting they did this just because. I'm suggesting they did this in error, because whoever wrote this and whatever committees it went through do not know what the fuck they are doing and/or are lazy. Considering everything else that this Congress has got into the news for so far, that wouldn't at all surprise me.

The Senator proposing this, Jay Rockerfeller of West Virginia, has proposed similar legislation in past congresses. He is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. He has access to researchers, bill writers, and staff that number at lease 2 dozen (not counting the staffers, researchers and writers he has access to as a committee chairman).

And yet all of them are either clueless and/or lazy? Are you freakin' kidding me here?

No I'm not kidding you. Any parliamentary body is by necessary bureaucratic, and this kind of shit is exactly what bureaucracies do all the time. If you can't accept what I am suggesting possible to probable, you have spent a great deal of time and effort ignoring the actions of governments worldwide, both past and present.

007bistromath wrote:

No I'm not kidding you. Any parliamentary body is by necessary bureaucratic, and this kind of shit is exactly what bureaucracies do all the time. If you can't accept what I am suggesting possible to probable, you have spent a great deal of time and effort ignoring the actions of governments worldwide, both past and present.

Stop being so fucking cynical. What are you, the new Drifter?

007bistromath wrote:

No I'm not kidding you. Any parliamentary body is by necessary bureaucratic, and this kind of shit is exactly what bureaucracies do all the time. If you can't accept what I am suggesting possible to probable, you have spent a great deal of time and effort ignoring the actions of governments worldwide, both past and present.

Fucking loling. How do you type with your head so far up your ass?

007bistromath wrote:

No I'm not kidding you. Any parliamentary body is by necessary bureaucratic, and this kind of shit is exactly what bureaucracies do all the time. If you can't accept what I am suggesting possible to probable, you have spent a great deal of time and effort ignoring the actions of governments worldwide, both past and present.

And you have obviously not spent any time actually working within such a bureaucracy, and I'm telling you that what you propose has about as much chance of happening as an asteroid hitting the earth tomorrow.

I worked in legislative research - I think I know how the process works. Bills go through drafts, and again this is not the first time Rockefeller has proposed this legislation. Every detail is scrutinized in a bill such as this to prevent exactly what you claim has happened because if they didn't the other side would use it to their political advantage.

If what you say is true, then why in hell aren't Republican congressmen screaming from the rooftops about this? They scream about every other thing that could be seen in the same light, so why not this one?

I'm a cynic with his head up his ass for suggesting that the bureaucracy with the most power and money in the world may be susceptible to bureaucratic incompetence, when that was the main force behind the downfall of nearly every hegemonic empire that has ever existed?

I'm going to Mars, fuck you guys.

007bistromath wrote:

I'm a cynic with his head up his ass for suggesting that the bureaucracy with the most power and money in the world may be susceptible to bureaucratic incompetence, when that was the main force behind the downfall of nearly every hegemonic empire that has ever existed?

I'm going to Mars, fuck you guys.

Don't forget to write! Don't forget to never come back!

007bistromath wrote:

I'm a cynic with his head up his ass for suggesting that the bureaucracy with the most power and money in the world may be susceptible to bureaucratic incompetence, when that was the main force behind the downfall of nearly every hegemonic empire that has ever existed?

I'm going to Mars, fuck you guys.

Doctor Manhattan's a lot more aggressive and negative than I imagined.

Spotts1701 wrote:

If what you say is true, then why in hell aren't Republican congressmen screaming from the rooftops about this? They scream about every other thing that could be seen in the same light, so why not this one?

You're seriously claiming that the lack of Republican outrage is some kind of proof that everything is proper here? It hasn't occurred to you that the past several Congresses have been composed of two parties that behave as one giant moneypyre whenever they can get away with it? You can't possibly envision a Republican congresscritter who will gladly put his name on anything that has the word "security" in it?

What the hell, people?

007bistromath wrote:

You're seriously claiming that the lack of Republican outrage is some kind of proof that everything is proper here? It hasn't occurred to you that the past several Congresses have been composed of two parties that behave as one giant moneypyre whenever they can get away with it? You can't possibly envision a Republican congresscritter who will gladly put his name on anything that has the word "security" in it?

Actually, I can. Because in case you haven't noticed, the current main goal of the Republican Party is to completely thwart anything that comes from the Democratic Party.

I can think of several Republicans who would be opposed to this either on libertarian principles or "anti-socialism" principles. And several more that would pitch a fit to throw more red meat to the Republican base that believes that Obama is the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

Any appeal to that base is faux-populist garbletrash and you know it. The Republican Party still has enough neocon turncoats in it that Congress will always follow the money on anything Republicans can half-reasonably claim as agreeable with their own goals, and "security" has been one of the main codewords for that for the past eight years.

007bistromath wrote:

Any appeal to that base is faux-populist garbletrash and you know it. The Republican Party still has enough neocon turncoats in it that Congress will always follow the money on anything Republicans can half-reasonably claim as agreeable with their own goals, and "security" has been one of the main codewords for that for the past eight years.

Okay, I'm done talking to you because you obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

You might have a better idea of how specific procedures work or at least theoretically work, but I don't need a degree to see what Congress actually does all the goddamn time. That is fairly obvious by just paying attention to the news.

"Ah," thought Penguin as he was quickly incinerated, "that's why the thread's doorknob was so damn hot."