CISPA Passes the House: 219 Republicans Yay / 188 Democrats Nay

Both parties are exactly the same. 

An almost unanimous no from democrats in the house (except from 8 in committee) CISPA now looks like it has no chance in the senate and now the white house is seeking key revisions in privacy language otherwise they'll recommend a veto from Obama. 

Update: Obama did issue a veto threat ahead of vote. 

Never mind your original link was from last week, they voted today. My bad.

Why did those 8 democrats on the committee vote yes but nobody else? Was it because Obama decided in the last week to threaten to veto?

I hope Obama holds true to his veto threat. I also hope it doesn't pass the senate. The government has proven to be very inept at it's attempts to regulate the internet, and thus I want them to stay out of it.

Serraph105

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that. Rich3232

Put it this way, if a government tyrannically told its unarmed citizens that as of today onwards, everything is going to be censored, nothing can be done. The same thing can't be pulled off in the case of guns, at least not without a bloody resistance.

And I'm not saying this bill isn't stupid, by the way.

Somehow in the end of all this, Obama will be the bad guy.

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

th3warr1or

Guns can't do anything on there own. If a gun is to be used as a meaningful political tool there has to be an idea behind it. 

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Guns, not freedom of information, are the last line of defense. Everything else can be forcibly taken from you and frankly you can't do jack about it. th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] If you're using a gun to overthrow what you deem to be an oppressive government you're a criminal. That might be the most illegal thing you could do. -Sun_Tzu-

As far as overthrowing governments are concerned, I draw a line between legitimate governments and military juntas or dictatorships. I don't think anyone outside of North Korea would say Koreans are criminals if they overthrew Kim.

there was essentially not a single civilian in Germany at that point that was even armed. th3warr1or

And North Korea would certainly deem anyone who tried to overthrow their regime a criminal, and that's what matters. The fact that you think that people who dissaprove of the North Korean government are in the right isn't going to get them out of the concentration camp. You're arbirarily changing the definition of what it means to be a criminal. And I'm not saying that there aren't laws that should be broken, but there's an underlying contradiction to say that "law-abiding citizens" need to be able to purchase guns to protect themselves from an oppressive government. 

By definition a law-abiding citizen can't protect itself from an oppressive government. 

I hope Obama holds true to his veto threat. I also hope it doesn't pass the senate. The government has proven to be very inept at it's attempts to regulate the internet, and thus I want them to stay out of it.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

I hope Obama holds true to his veto threat. I also hope it doesn't pass the senate. The government has proven to be very inept at it's attempts to regulate the internet, and thus I want them to stay out of it.

Rich3232

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] That's just completely incorrect.

And North Korea would certainly deem anyone who tried to overthrow their regime a criminal, and that's what matters. The fact that you think that people who dissaprove of the North Korean government are in the right isn't going to get them out of the concentration camp. You're arbirarily changing the definition of what it means to be a criminal. And I'm not saying that there aren't laws that should be broken, but there's an underlying contradiction to say that "law-abiding citizens" need to be able to purchase guns to protect themselves from an oppressive government. 

By definition a law-abiding citizen can't protect itself from an oppressive government. 

-Sun_Tzu-

I'd say that's a distinction without a difference. 

"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime." - Max Stirner

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]

I hope Obama holds true to his veto threat. I also hope it doesn't pass the senate. The government has proven to be very inept at it's attempts to regulate the internet, and thus I want them to stay out of it.

Serraph105

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

Rich3232

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

We'll fight for your right to own guns, but not for you to have internet freedom.

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Guns, not freedom of information, are the last line of defense. Everything else can be forcibly taken from you and frankly you can't do jack about it. th3warr1or

Put it this way, if a government tyrannically told its unarmed citizens that as of today onwards, everything is going to be censored, nothing can be done. The same thing can't be pulled off in the case of guns, at least not without a bloody resistance.

And I'm not saying this bill isn't stupid, by the way.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="Rich3232"] Guns can also be taken away from you. Ace6301

Put it this way, if a government tyrannically told its unarmed citizens that as of today onwards, everything is going to be censored, nothing can be done. The same thing can't be pulled off in the case of guns, at least not without a bloody resistance.

And I'm not saying this bill isn't stupid, by the way.

This is all for show. Democrats do not care about privacy at all, and their record before now proves it. Also I do not expect to vote for my congressman in future elections.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Only if you give it up willingly, and if you do that to a tyrannical government, and that's not very smart.

Put it this way, if a government tyrannically told its unarmed citizens that as of today onwards, everything is going to be censored, nothing can be done. The same thing can't be pulled off in the case of guns, at least not without a bloody resistance.

And I'm not saying this bill isn't stupid, by the way.

th3warr1or

If a gun is to be used as a meaningful political tool there has to be an idea behind it.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. - Joseph Stalin-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"] That doesn't mean that restricting guns to law abiding people is good. If criminals gave a damn about laws, they wouldn't be criminals, because there are already laws against murder, theft, etc. th3warr1or

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Nobody mentioned anything about overthrowing anyone's government. I was thinking more along the lines of not repeating a pre-WW2 Nazi Germany. th3warr1or

As far as overthrowing governments are concerned, I draw a line between legitimate governments and military juntas or dictatorships. I don't think anyone outside of North Korea would say Koreans are criminals if they overthrew Kim.

I see Republicans are once again showing themselves as the party of freedom. Just like with their stances on gay marriage, abortion, immigration, drugs, and more, they never fail to uphold personal freedom.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How are you suppose to avoid repeatinga pre-WWII Nazi Germany via firearms without actually overthrowing the Reich? chessmaster1989

As far as overthrowing governments are concerned, I draw a line between legitimate governments and military juntas or dictatorships. I don't think anyone outside of North Korea would say Koreans are criminals if they overthrew Kim.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I see Republicans are once again showing themselves as the party of freedom. Just like with their stances on gay marriage, abortion, immigration, drugs, and more, they never fail to uphold personal freedom.th3warr1or

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]there was essentially not a single civilian in Germany at that point that was even armed. -Sun_Tzu-

And North Korea would certainly deem anyone who tried to overthrow their regime a criminal, and that's what matters. The fact that you think that people who dissaprove of the North Korean government are in the right isn't going to get them out of the concentration camp. You're arbirarily changing the definition of what it means to be a criminal. And I'm not saying that there aren't laws that should be broken, but there's an underlying contradiction to say that "law-abiding citizens" need to be able to purchase guns to protect themselves from an oppressive government. 

By definition a law-abiding citizen can't protect itself from an oppressive government. 

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that. DroidPhysX

mhmm