general security issues

[devanshoom]

...Well, they can write and propose the bill, but passing it and implementing it are two things that are not going to be as easy as it may seem to you...

well, at least now your aware of it....

of course if people stand up and say "no" then yeah, it wont go through...but they wont....cos chances are 95% of the USA population wont even acknowledge that it exists...its all tin-foil hat conspiracy theories isnt it?

[ajkula66]

devanshoom wrote:

of course if people stand up and say "no" then yeah, it wont go through.

Nah...people have stood up against Obamacare and it was still passed, so you're somewhat on the wrong track there.

If November elections play out the way I predict, the bill you're referring to is DOA.

Sit back, relax and watch the show. But don't forget to tighten your seat belt, since it's going to be a bumpy ride...

[dsvochak]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
http://laughterandliberty.com/senate-bi ... d-sort-of/

[j-dawg]

Cars are Faraday cages like airplanes are - they disperse the charge placed on them (like lightning), and it follows the path of least resistance. That is why when you are getting out of a car hit by lightening, you cannot touch the ground and the car at the same time, otherwise you will complete the circuit. In the case of planes, the charge is distributed over the skin to the static wicks on the wing and the tail where it is dispersed into the atmosphere.

Why would the voltage stay in the car instead of going to the ground? The potential difference was high enough to traverse the distance between the cloud in the sky thousands of feet up and the car itself. I can't imagine that it wouldn't then make the jump from car to ground.

[killer]

Ah, but does lightening go from the cloud to the earth, or from the earth to the cloud?

[devanshoom]

[/quote] Nah...people have stood up against Obamacare and it was still passed, so you're somewhat on the wrong track there.[/quote]

I know where your coming from..........its just I have to curtail myself somewhat cos as far as everyone here is concerned I am nothing but a moron with a Bakelite cranial wraparound .

[ThinkRob]

while you were all discussing faraday cages, a new senate bill has emerged, BILL S510......a bill that will ban you the people from growing your own food.

I don't believe that's what the bill stipulates.

Can you please cite the specific sections that describe such a ban?

[Marin85]

while you were all discussing faraday cages, a new senate bill has emerged, BILL S510......a bill that will ban you the people from growing your own food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEr9EeXe ... r_embedded

That reminds me of the movie Food Inc. Anyone has watched it? If all these things mentioned in the movie are true, I wouldn´t be surprised if the bill passes...

[devanshoom]

[/quote]

I don't believe that's what the bill stipulates.

Can you please cite the specific sections that describe such a ban?[/quote]



I confess I really cant be bothered trauling through government documents and then picking out certain areas that back my argument up, and then wait for you to pick out certain areas that back your argument up, and we get involved in a bunch of titt-for-tat posting and ultimately just run around in circles feeding our egos...no doubt you will lambaste me for such an attitude but to be honest i have gone past that kind of thing. Im just trying to draw your attention to a few issues that i feel are important.....whether you believe it or not is up to you.

if you are genuinely interested then go read up some stuff yourself and draw your own conclusion. Good place to start would be "codex alimentarius". Understand codex and you basically have the corporate food agenda in a nutshell.

[devanshoom]

A 90 minute presentation on codex alimentarius...draw your own conclusions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9960925518#

[dsvochak]

1.

Can you please cite the specific sections that describe such a ban?

No, as no such section/provision exists.

2.

I confess I really cant be bothered trauling through government documents and then picking out certain areas that back my argument up

Given #1 above, this is probably a prudent course of action. Facts should never be allowed to sway "my argument".

3.

codex alimentarius

Don't bother with the 90 minute presentation. Simply refer to the posts above in this thread about the Soylent Corporation, the trilateral commission, etc.

(ps--Since I'm not growing my own food now I'm not sure why I should be concerned about the bill.)

[ThinkRob]

I confess I really cant be bothered trauling through government documents and then picking out certain areas that back my argument up, and then wait for you to pick out certain areas that back your argument up, and we get involved in a bunch of titt-for-tat posting and ultimately just run around in circles feeding our egos...no doubt you will lambaste me for such an attitude but to be honest i have gone past that kind of thing. Im just trying to draw your attention to a few issues that i feel are important.....whether you believe it or not is up to you.

if you are genuinely interested then go read up some stuff yourself and draw your own conclusion. Good place to start would be "codex alimentarius". Understand codex and you basically have the corporate food agenda in a nutshell.

So just to clarify:

You made some serious allegations. When asked to provide basic evidence in support of what I think most reasonable people would agree were some rather extraordinary claims, you claim that you "really cant [sic] be bothered". Instead, your sole supporting statement is that people should search for a specific keyword?

Very well. Two can play at that game. Please read up on "some stuff", starting with the phrase "burden of proof".

[Harryc]

I don't like the direction this thread is heading. Furthermore it is now so far off topic that it is just getting ridiculous. The Op started out by expressing a concern about Internet security and now we're into a heated debate about agriculture in the US. Enough is enough. Thread Locked.