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

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Blue-Sky
#1 Posted by Blue-Sky (10379 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Wasdie
#2 Posted by Wasdie (53489 posts) -

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?

Avatar image for Rich3232
#3 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

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
>Following through with promises >obama Choose one.
Avatar image for Rich3232
#4 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -

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

jimkabrhel
Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#7 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -

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

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

th3warr1or

Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.

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.

Guns are p. useless if you don't have any information about your own government.

Avatar image for th3warr1or
#8 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

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

Guns can also be taken away from you.

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.

Avatar image for Squeets
#9 Posted by Squeets (8185 posts) -

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

Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#10 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
Laihendi's beloved House of Representative protecting our rights.
Avatar image for MrPraline
#11 Posted by MrPraline (21351 posts) -
>"Citing above all else the need to "carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties", the White House [...]" LMAO
Avatar image for Rich3232
#12 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrPraline"]>"Citing above all else the need to "carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties", the White House [...]" LMAO

Rofl. Same shit, different day.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#13 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

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

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

th3warr1or

Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.

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.

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

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. 

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#14 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

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

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.

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. 

Avatar image for th3warr1or
#15 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

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

How are you suppose to avoid repeatinga pre-WWII Nazi Germany via firearms without actually overthrowing the Reich?

The reason Nazi Germany could even start proposing their absurd ideas without fear of retribution was because there was essentially not a single civilian in Germany at that point that was even armed. Would anything have changed if the Germans had guns? Well, I don't know. But Nazi Germany disarmed their people before introducing their concepts, not after. Would anyone have willingly given up their arms if they knew what a madman Hitler (y'sh) was?

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.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#16 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Serraph105
#17 Posted by Serraph105 (31901 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for JML897
#18 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -
It sounds like whether Obama will stick to his veto threat or not will be completely irrelevant
Avatar image for Serraph105
#19 Posted by Serraph105 (31901 posts) -
[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
>Following through with promises >obama Choose one.

I choose an order of plain english please
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#20 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

[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-

Not necessarily. Is it a crime for a law-abiding citizen to protect himself from a criminal? If say, a democratic government suddenly ignored democracy and started implementing "laws" contrary to the fundamentals of the state using force and violence as opposed to actual democracy, they're the criminals. They were voted in, and now they're disregarding the same system that allowed them to even be there. That just makes it an organized crime ring, not a government.

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


Well, fair enough. Like I said, this bill is stupid, but hypocrites run on both sides.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#21 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -
The one time I actually agree with the Democrats and they lose. WTF?!
Avatar image for Rich3232
#22 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
[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
>Following through with promises >obama Choose one.

I choose an order of plain english please

Fvcking glitchspot, man
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#23 Posted by nintendoboy16 (33753 posts) -
They learnt nothing from SOPA, did they?
Avatar image for Ace6301
#24 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
I wonder if Obama will let everyone down again on his veto promises?
Avatar image for jimkabrhel
#25 Posted by jimkabrhel (15625 posts) -

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

Avatar image for angeldeb82
#26 Posted by angeldeb82 (1472 posts) -
Link on this incident, or it's no deal.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#27 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
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.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#28 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

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

Rich3232
Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.

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.
Avatar image for Ace6301
#29 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

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

th3warr1or
Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.

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.

If you're down to guns you've already lost. Education and freedom of information is how you prevent tyranny. Guns are how you resist it once it's there and as I've said before good luck with that.
Avatar image for Rich3232
#30 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

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

th3warr1or
Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.

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.

Guns can also be taken away from you.
Avatar image for Ace6301
#31 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

[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

Guns can also be taken away from you.

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.

Good luck fighting when you don't know it's happening or have propaganda working against you. They aren't going to tell you they're coming for your guns in this case, they'll just show up and take them and you'll either be dead or your guns gone. Education and the ability to access information is how you prevent that sort of thing.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#32 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

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

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.

Good luck fighting when you don't know it's happening or have propaganda working against you. They aren't going to tell you they're coming for your guns in this case, they'll just show up and take them and you'll either be dead or your guns gone. Education and the ability to access information is how you prevent that sort of thing.

Yes, I don't disagree that education and information is important. However, knowing that someone is about to kill you and being unable to do anything about it, is just as bad as not knowing that someone is about to kill you but being able to do something about it should you find out.
Avatar image for NEWMAHAY
#33 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3824 posts) -
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
I had no idea Laih was against freedom too. So much as changed. I feel so manipulated.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#34 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
[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
Good luck fighting when you don't know it's happening or have propaganda working against you. They aren't going to tell you they're coming for your guns in this case, they'll just show up and take them and you'll either be dead or your guns gone. Education and the ability to access information is how you prevent that sort of thing.

Yes, I don't disagree that education and information is important. However, knowing that someone is about to kill you and being unable to do anything about it, is just as bad as not knowing that someone is about to kill you but being able to do something about it should you find out.

Do countries win wars using this line of reasoning?
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#35 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Good luck fighting when you don't know it's happening or have propaganda working against you. They aren't going to tell you they're coming for your guns in this case, they'll just show up and take them and you'll either be dead or your guns gone. Education and the ability to access information is how you prevent that sort of thing.

Yes, I don't disagree that education and information is important. However, knowing that someone is about to kill you and being unable to do anything about it, is just as bad as not knowing that someone is about to kill you but being able to do something about it should you find out.

Do countries win wars using this line of reasoning?

Apparently so, given that no country has an "unarmed" military focused purely on intel....
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#36 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] Something something guns prevent tyranny something. Even though, education and freedom of information are far more effective than that.

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.

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. - Joseph Stalin

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.
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#37 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Yes, I don't disagree that education and information is important. However, knowing that someone is about to kill you and being unable to do anything about it, is just as bad as not knowing that someone is about to kill you but being able to do something about it should you find out.

Do countries win wars using this line of reasoning?

Apparently so, given that no country has an "unarmed" military focused purely on intel....

Wait until you learn what holds for the opposite.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#38 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

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

-Sun_Tzu-
As I said, I don't disagree.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#39 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Do countries win wars using this line of reasoning?

Apparently so, given that no country has an "unarmed" military focused purely on intel....

Wait until you learn what holds for the opposite.

I don't follow. What countries would you be referring to with an all-brute force, no intel, military?
Avatar image for DroidPhysX
#40 Posted by DroidPhysX (17098 posts) -
[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"] Apparently so, given that no country has an "unarmed" military focused purely on intel....

Wait until you learn what holds for the opposite.

I don't follow. What countries would you be referring to with an all-brute force, no intel, military?

The same countries you referred in your previous post.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#41 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

[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-

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.

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. 

Nobody mentioned anything about overthrowing anyone's government. I was thinking more along the lines of not repeating a pre-WW2 Nazi Germany.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#42 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] Wait until you learn what holds for the opposite.

I don't follow. What countries would you be referring to with an all-brute force, no intel, military?

The same countries you referred in your previous post.

I don't support the taking away of information, so I have no idea what you're getting at. The point is, information is only one side of the coin. It's useless without the ability to actually do something about it.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#43 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[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

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. 

Nobody mentioned anything about overthrowing anyone's government. I was thinking more along the lines of not repeating a pre-WW2 Nazi Germany.

How are you suppose to avoid repeatinga pre-WWII Nazi Germany via firearms without actually overthrowing the Reich?
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#44 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
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.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#45 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[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

How are you suppose to avoid repeatinga pre-WWII Nazi Germany via firearms without actually overthrowing the Reich?

The reason Nazi Germany could even start proposing their absurd ideas without fear of retribution was because there was essentially not a single civilian in Germany at that point that was even armed. Would anything have changed if the Germans had guns? Well, I don't know. But Nazi Germany disarmed their people before introducing their concepts, not after. Would anyone have willingly given up their arms if they knew what a madman Hitler (y'sh) was?

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.

If only France had had guns, Germany never could have conquered them.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#46 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
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
Hypocrisy isn't exclusive to either party.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#47 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

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

The reason Nazi Germany could even start proposing their absurd ideas without fear of retribution was because there was essentially not a single civilian in Germany at that point that was even armed. Would anything have changed if the Germans had guns? Well, I don't know. But Nazi Germany disarmed their people before introducing their concepts, not after. Would anyone have willingly given up their arms if they knew what a madman Hitler (y'sh) was?

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.

If only France had had guns, Germany never could have conquered them.

French resistance continued fighting way into the surrender.
Avatar image for Rich3232
#48 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
[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
Hypocrisy isn't exclusive to either party.

No, but Republicans claim to be for small government and almost everything they do run contrary to that idea wrt social issues.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
#49 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

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

Not necessarily. Is it a crime for a law-abiding citizen to protect himself from a criminal? If say, a democratic government suddenly ignored democracy and started implementing "laws" contrary to the fundamentals of the state using force and violence as opposed to actual democracy, they're the criminals. They were voted in, and now they're disregarding the same system that allowed them to even be there. That just makes it an organized crime ring, not a government.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#50 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

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

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.

Guns are p. useless if you don't have any information about your own government.

mhmm