CISPA just passed the House.

[cycle61]

The government is writing themselves a blank warrant to snoop on basically everything you ever have done or will do online, under the righteous banner of "cybersecurity" and protecting the children. This bill has bipartisan support, with many representatives voting across party lines to approve or deny the measure.

More details:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa...e-house-2012-4

[JDay]

Originally Posted by cycle61

The government is writing themselves a blank warrant to snoop on basically everything you ever have done or will do online, under the righteous banner of "cybersecurity" and protecting the children. This bill has bipartisan support, with many representatives voting across party lines to approve or deny the measure.

More details:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa...e-house-2012-4

Not really, I looked at the votes and it was mostly Republicans who voted for it.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

Republicans:
Yea - 206
Nay - 28
Not Voting - 7

Democrats:
Yea - 42
Nay - 140
Not Voting - 8

That comes out to 28% Democrats vs 85% Republicans.

[Autarchist]

Folks in the government have realized how dangerous the internet is to their power.

They want us getting our information from the state-controlled MSM.

[Nose Nuggets]

Originally Posted by Autarchist

Folks in the government have realized how dangerous the internet is to their power.

They want us getting our information from the state-controlled MSM.

This is where i would put my money, if i was a gambling man.

[cycle61]

Originally Posted by JDay

That comes out to 28% Democrats vs 85% Republicans.

Exactly. Both parties are trying to control and invade your rights and privacy. Both seem perfectly comfortable wiping their *** with the bill of rights and the constitution. Would a real Libertarian party be too much to ask at this point?

[wjc]

Looks like we are back to plotting in taverns....

[JDay]

Originally Posted by cycle61

Exactly. Both parties are trying to control and invade your rights and privacy. Both seem perfectly comfortable wiping their *** with the bill of rights and the constitution. Would a real Libertarian party be too much to ask at this point?

I think my post went right over your head. I pointed out that the Democrats for the most part are against this bill, probably because it's an election year. In any case I hope this bill dies before it can become law.

[Demonicspire]

Obama says " I will veto" and unless they can come up with 30 more votes, they can't override him.

[Yugo]

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Demonicspire

Obama says " I will veto" and unless they can come up with 30 more votes, they can't override him.

He has promised a lot of things that he never delivered on. Not to mention he signed ACTA yet spoke out against SOPA and PIPA, it's all posturing in order to fool the masses who are likely to vote for him this election.

[Demonicspire]

Originally Posted by JDay

He has promised a lot of things that he never delivered on. Not to mention he signed ACTA yet spoke out against SOPA and PIPA, it's all posturing in order to fool the masses who are likely to vote for him this election.

Well, I'm not sure why he'd reverse his position on the veto, barring a radical shift of the political landscape. Anywho, I hope he vetos it.

[Autarchist]

Originally Posted by Demonicspire

Well, I'm not sure why he'd reverse his position on the veto, barring a radical shift of the political landscape. Anywho, I hope he vetos it.

If he vetos it this time around, he will surely sign the next incarnation, which will most likely be even worse, during his next term when he doesn't need to worry about re-election.

[Demonicspire]

Originally Posted by Autarchist

If he vetos it this time around, he will surely sign the next incarnation, which will most likely be even worse, during his next term when he doesn't need to worry about re-election.

Who knows, at the very least the veto would give time for support to be rallied. Would you rather he not veto it?

[Autarchist]

Originally Posted by Demonicspire

Who knows, at the very least the veto would give time for support to be rallied. Would you rather he not veto it?

I'd prefer that people would finally see through the veil of false legitimacy sheilding the government, and they stopped supporting the institution completely. Then we can finally let it wither away and die, just like every other outdated ideological paradigm does eventually. "Government", as we have it today, really hasn't changed much since the days when people pooped in the dirt and attributed illnesses to demonic possessions, and it really shows given the lack of rationality and critical thinking ability one must have to support such an oppressive and damaging insitution.

Whether they crank down control over the internet this year or next doesn't matter a whole lot. One thing all governments do is grow. The idea of a "limited" government is a farse, an impossible ideal.

[Demonicspire]

Originally Posted by Autarchist

I'd prefer that people would finally see through the veil of false legitimacy sheilding the government, and they stopped supporting the institution completely. Then we can finally let it wither away and die, just like every other outdated ideological paradigm does eventually. "Government", as we have it today, really hasn't changed much since the days when people pooped in the dirt and attributed illnesses to demonic possessions, and it really shows given the lack of rationality and critical thinking ability one must have to support such an oppressive and damaging insitution.

Whether they crank down control over the internet this year or next doesn't matter a whole lot. One thing all governments do is grow. The idea of a "limited" government is a farse, an impossible ideal.

Oh sorry, totally didn't process your avatar till now, silly me. I think of it this way "American Democracy is a terrible system of government, but the others are all so much worse"

[Autarchist]

Originally Posted by Demonicspire

Oh sorry, totally didn't process your avatar till now, silly me. I think of it this way "American Democracy is a terrible system of government, but the others are all so much worse"

That's right. Brain cancer is worse than colon cancer, but that's still no reason to support the idea of having colon cancer.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Demonicspire

Oh sorry, totally didn't process your avatar till now, silly me. I think of it this way "American Democracy is a terrible system of government, but the others are all so much worse"

The claims that this country was founded as a "Democracy" are lies. This country was founded as a Republic. Nothing will change until people realize that they have been lied to about this their entire life.

United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy

Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic--a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

[Demonicspire]

Originally Posted by JDay

The claims that this country was founded as a "Democracy" are lies. This country was founded as a Republic. Nothing will change until people realize that they have been lied to about this their entire life.

United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy

You're a real stickler for the terms. I know the US is a republic because we have representatives, and not a plebiscite with equal vote weighting. However you can apply the adjective "democratic" to it. Seriously bro, relax. I don't think there is a conspiracy of anything but grammar.

[JDay]

Originally Posted by Demonicspire

You're a real stickler for the terms. I know the US is a republic because we have representatives, and not a plebiscite with equal vote weighting. However you can apply the adjective "democratic" to it. Seriously bro, relax. I don't think there is a conspiracy of anything but grammar.

The way things are handled now it has become a democracy. We are ruled by the majority and no longer by laws. For a recent example look at the Trayvon Martin case. There was not enough evidence for charges to be brought against Zimmerman, but due to mob rule he was charged and arrested.

Read the article I posted, it is not just "grammar" there is a major difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Democracies are nothing more than mob rule.

[Demonicspire]

Originally Posted by JDay

The way things are handled now it has become a democracy. We are ruled by the majority and no longer by laws. For a recent example look at the Trayvon Martin case. There was not enough evidence for charges to be brought against Zimmerman, but due to mob rule he was charged and arrested.

Read the article I posted, it is not just "grammar" there is a major difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Democracies are nothing more than mob rule.

I know there's a difference, again you misunderstand I was clarifying that I know America is a republic, and I was using "American Democracy" as a loose paraphrasing of Winston Churchill's statement "'Democracy is a very bad form of government. Unfortunately all the others are so much worse". I know what the differences are between a democracy and a republic. I was however disagreeing that what we have now is a pure democracy. Please, I know I'm not an acclaimed writer, but I do try to make myself clear.

[Autarchist]

My guess is that Obama has threatened to veto for one or both of these reasons:

1. To prevent the huge backlash seen with SOPA. If the messiah is promising to strike down this beast, the people need not worry. Notice there has been very little awareness of this bill compared with SOPA. Then, after changes are made to the bill (either making even worse, or only slightly less egregious) he will pretend it was a victory for freedom when he signs it. He is definitely a master of orchestrating doublethink.

Let's remember what happened with the NDAA and what the real reason was for his initial opposition.

2. To strengthen his re-election campaign. I doubt he will "need" any such stunts to get re-elected given the lack of competition from the opposing party, but this would be a great way for him to win back some favor, especially from the younger voters. Then, next year when he doesn't need to worry about getting re-elected and the bill comes back worse than ever, he will support it.

If it doesn't pass this time around, you can safely bet anything you have that it will be back very soon. The government has obviously caught on to how dangerous the free exchange of information is to their power and illusion of legitimacy. Taking control over the internet surely must be one of their highest priorities at the moment.

[smird]

Originally Posted by wjc

Looks like we are back to plotting in taverns....

Good, I could use a drink.