* Jim Gribbin <jimgribbin@gmail.com> [110125 13:12]:
> I agree, this looks to be a bad idea.
>
> I do think that what should be looked at is a physically separate
> internet, potentially with portals to the public internet. This would
> give the president something he can close off in an emergency. Just like
> shutting the public gates to military bases and other government
> facilities.
>
> Of course, I don't think the National Airspace should have been closed
> down after 9/11, not for more than a couple of hours anyway. Shutting us
> down for an extended period of time like that is when the terrorists
> knew they were winning.
I second that emotion .....
> Oh well, I don't have time for a rant right now...
A few years ago, I told one of my more liberal friends that
regardless of the fact that he didn't like George Bush or Dick
Cheney - that we could agree that the first thing on their mind
when they woke up in the morning was protecting their country.
I could say the same for the current prez. But sometimes the
purest of motives can generate impure ideas.... thank our founding
fathers that we have a separation of powers.
> > http://m.cnet.com/Article.rbml;jsessionid=d3w0gEQS11ZFbbfs8g6JaQ**?nid=10320096&cid=null&bcid=&bid=-38
> > I hope i'm not the only one on this list that thinks giving the president "emergency" powers over the internet is a bad idea.
-- Tim tim at johnsons-web.com or akwebsoft.com http://www.akwebsoft.com --------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.Received on Wed Jan 26 10:34:02 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 26 2011 - 10:34:03 AKST