• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

House passes CISPA with overwhelming GOP support

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Add another issue proving the 'no difference between the parties' ignorant people wrong.

Its not that there is not any difference, its just that the differences are simply which lobby they bow down to.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Fortunately Obama said he'll flush this Republican turd if it ever floats.
Obama isn't oppsed to the bill, he just wants more oversight.

The White House issued a statement, saying that the bill did "not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes
42 Democrats voted for this bill in it's present form.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,758
1,491
136
Fortunately Obama said he'll flush this Republican turd if it ever floats.
While I applaud the President for vowing to veto this horrible legislation, I find it unfortunate that he will do so only because he favors the version currently in the Senate which isn't really any less invasive and offensive, it just has more "oversight".
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
Yep, GOP really screwed the pooch on this one . . . . brb have to check if my REP was one of them
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
I can't speak for everyone, but my position has been the two parties are more alike than different, not that they are identical. Yes, I certainly agree the Republicans are demonstrably worse for most Americans, but the Democratic party is a disgrace too. On this specific issue they serve Americans' interests better, on many they're comparably bad, and on some, they're clearly worse. Ultimately both parties focus most on whoring themselves to select special interests with deep pockets rather than serving the majority of American citizens. Some of those special interests have bought both parties, others pick sides.
There are very important issues where they are different. And too many issues they're not.

However, the Democratic Party in the House has nearly half the members in the Proegressive Caucus; your post is much more accurate about the others.

It's not about the Progressive Caucus much at all. They generally do 'put the people first'; and they lack the advertising budget to win over 'moderates' to notice it.

The Senate, not so much - members like Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, and some others no longer there; just a small number, like Bernie Sanders and Al Franken.

So, while there's some truth to your post, what's more important - cynicism about the issues they're 'both bad' on, or the many issues they're not?

That doesn't take anything away from the importance of larger reform causing the corruption of both parties. But people who think they're 'the same' are very wrong.

Do you really need even a small summary, from Supreme Court appointments with Republicans appointing radicals from the Federalist Society who would not follow the norms in our constitutional definitions, behind so many terrible 5-4 decisions including Citizens United; the Republicans following huge sellout programs, practically opposing government in general when it represents the people, allowing those corrupt interests to write leislation, the K Street project demanding they donate only to Republicans to get their bills voted on when they had Congress; their only real policy agenda being to transfer wealth to the rich taking the country to plutocracy, with pandering to whoever is needed to get the power for those votes; just look at examples from Bush's top domestic priorities - first term, tax cuts for the rich, second term privatize social security. Look at the Ryan Budget basically all Republicans support which among other things destroys Medicare 'as we know it', a system of healthcare, turning it into a 'coupon' for inefficient private insurace spending a third less on people and putting the savings into another tax cut for the rich - at first, with more reductions likely over time as they destroy this Democratic thorn in their side from the Great Society. Republicans are the ones who want to abandon 'government for the people' and wholesale destroy government functions from education to environmental protection, and further gut regulation of the financial industry (the enemies of good public servants such as Elizabeth Warren who are for the people's interests).

I've just scratched the surface, but there are large differences. We need to oppose both the corrupt Republicans, the misguided Republicans (Tea Party types), and corrupt Democrats (often people who are simply sellouts, 'Democrats in Name Only' where running as a Democrats helps their chances).

You do not seem to appreciate the important differences - the Supreme Court alone is a strong reason to prefer one party.

Obama is basically a moderate Republican - but even there, he's very different than McCain or Romney, much better in most important areas (not a few others).

The Republican often don't campaign on thier agenda, so you can't just say 'oh, Republicans say they're for freedom, I like freedom, nothing wrong with them'.

They have historic control of statehouses now - surprising voters with their national agenda from ALEC, pushing voter suppression laws and union-busting laws among others they generally did not campaign on, designed for one purpose, to gut Democrats' power so they can better get wealth shifted to the 0.01%. Did Bush campaign on an obsession for war with Iraq he felt would boost his power? Quite the opposite. Did he campaign on skyrocketing defense and security spending onto the deficit with tax cuts for the rich? No, he did campaign on tax cuts, but only from 'the surplus' that was no longer there, nothing about weighting them so average Americans got crumbs (and Obama has actually cut middle class taxes much more). And many other issues.

Sorry Bowfinger, you can't just say 'they're the same' in some areas like there aren't very important issues they're not the same on.

It's hardly black and white - there are some 'bad Democrats', and problem areas (that's what happens when you 'need the corrupt money' for elections), but you're ignoring many very important issues in your calling the parties more similar than they are. Consider the policies passed by Democratic super-majorities in the last century - list all you can think of and tell me whether you agree with the policies.

Make a list in your next post. For a start, consider:

- Infrastructure New Deal programs
- Creation of the SEC and large strengthening of financial regulations from the New Deal
- Civil and Voting Rights Acts
- Anti-Poverty programs that cut the national poverty rate permanently by a third
- Freedom of Information Act providing public investigators access to government info
- Social Security
- Medicare and Medicaid
- Strengthening public education grealy increasing how many have higher education


And consider what Republicans have done with their large majorities, such as:

- Opposing unsuccessfully Social Security, 'socialized medicine' meaning Medicare
- Tax Cuts weighted for the rich and other policies leading to historic highs in the concentration of wealth, wanting even more shifts to the 0.01%
- De-regulating the financial industry (Savings and Loans under Reagan leading to the S&L crisis, working with non-progressive Democrats under Clinton, continuing under Bush leading to the 2008 crash, in part by shutting down actual regulation, appointing hundreds of 'regulators' from the lobbyists and executives of the industries they were supposed to regulate)
- The creation of defict spending like never seen in peacetime in American history
- Support for the corrupt overspending in the Military-Indusrial-Congressional complex
- Appointing the radical rightwing members on the Supreme Court
- Anti-Union, anti-worker, anti-minimum wage, anti-worker safety etc. policies

The result of the Republican shift since Reagan is a historic level of deficit spending in a 'starve the beast' strategy to kill off spending on the people, and a 30 year period in which all economic growth after in flation, in which the economy more than double, went to the top 20%, weighted to the top 1% and more weighted to the top 0.1%, leading to the first generation in American history worse off than the previous - and they want to shift wealth further to the top instead of shifting it back.

Democrats are better than Republicans on important issues, and Progressive much more than other Democrats and Republicans.

Save234
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Disgusting, but not terribly surprising. Of course Democrats will try to pin the death of privacy on Republicans, while Republicans were against SOPA and Democrats largely supported SOPA.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both parties want to give the federal government control over every aspect of our lives.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
One of the things this bill says is it is illegal for an employer or a school to require your facebook password. Hard to find info on what else it says. But the gist of it is to make a demarkation line between public information and private on the Internet. I could see how this could make a lot of people have to rewrite web pages and what-not.

Social Networking Online Protection Act

I was actually kind of shocked when my employer started putting things like W2 forms and Pay Statements on the Internet on a Secure Server. I would have thought this would be too much of a security problem.

So are they going to start throwing employers in jail?
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Its not that there is not any difference, its just that the differences are simply which lobby they bow down to.
Except no, it's not.

For example, as Obama said, 'women are not a special interest group'.

You might say 'labor' is an 'interest group', but really, which more represents the American people - labor, or interests such as 'the 1%' or big Wall Street firms?

Ya, Obama had big Wall Street backing over McCain in 2008 -the Democrats have a mixed record there, but look at the Porgressive Caucus, and Wall Street switched to Romney now.

A 'mixed record' for a party is a lot better than one that's not split on the wrong side.

We can agree that we have a big problem with corrupt interests' money dominating our elections, but the only group in Congress against that is the Progressive Caucus IMO.

So, do you oppose them - following where the money directs you for your support - or do you support them, despite their not having the big budget marketing, just good policies?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Wonder how long it takes the supreme court to throw this bill out. Assuming it could pass the Senate.

The problem with legislation like this is it needs a public vetting process. Where are the public trials about this subject? Where is the open and transparent O'bammah Presidency?
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
One of the things this bill says is it is illegal for an employer or a school to require your facebook password. Hard to find info on what else it says. But the gist of it is to make a demarkation line between public information and private on the Internet. I could see how this could make a lot of people have to rewrite web pages and what-not.

Social Networking Online Protection Act

I was actually kind of shocked when my employer started putting things like W2 forms and Pay Statements on the Internet on a Secure Server. I would have thought this would be too much of a security problem.

So are they going to start throwing employers in jail?
Employers' concern is less about 'actual security' and more about cost and what they are legally liable for. And guess how the laws will be changed when they write them.

THat's what the Republicans' 'Tort Reform' is about - create a myth that the legal system is drastically filled with frivolous and harmful lawsuits to give them cover to pass laws removing rights from average people and classes of Americans who are wrong by protecting powerful interests over them - kill the last resort of protection for Americans.

Of course the legal system does have some problems, but the issue with Republican 'Tort Reform' is to grossly exaggerate them to create more injustice.

Save234
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Maybe every computer on the Internet and every cell phone is percieved as a homeland security spy camera and listening device?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I can't speak for everyone, but my position has been the two parties are more alike than different, not that they are identical. Yes, I certainly agree the Republicans are demonstrably worse for most Americans, but the Democratic party is a disgrace too. On this specific issue they serve Americans' interests better, on many they're comparably bad, and on some, they're clearly worse. Ultimately both parties focus most on whoring themselves to select special interests with deep pockets rather than serving the majority of American citizens. Some of those special interests have bought both parties, others pick sides.
Well said.

Obama isn't oppsed to the bill, he just wants more oversight.



42 Democrats voted for this bill in it's present form.
I'm not familiar with the bill, but assuming there's anything good in it, more oversight is often better than less. Not that Congress will stir its collective ass in any case.

Disgusting, but not terribly surprising. Of course Democrats will try to pin the death of privacy on Republicans, while Republicans were against SOPA and Democrats largely supported SOPA.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both parties want to give the federal government control over every aspect of our lives.
QFT Nonetheless, it's inescapable that the Dems are generally speaking better on these issues than are the Pubbies.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,324
4
0
We have protections from frivolous lawsuits - you would deny access to legitimate people.
lol, sure we do.

I find it interesting that most of you bashing the repubs have ignored Matt's comment that the ONLY reason why Obama is going to veto this is that it doesn't contain enough oversight, ie regulation. lol Otherwise, he is not opposed to the bill.

Okay, so it goes to the Senate, they add in more oversight and, voila, Obama signs. Will you still blame the repubs?
 

csteggo

Member
Jul 5, 2004
70
0
0
Wonder how long it takes the supreme court to throw this bill out. Assuming it could pass the Senate.

The problem with legislation like this is it needs a public vetting process. Where are the public trials about this subject? Where is the open and transparent O'bammah Presidency?
Because a passing a house vote has anything at all to do with transparency from the Obama administration. With your wonderful logic here why do you not blame Obama for your fries being cold from McDonald's.
 

csteggo

Member
Jul 5, 2004
70
0
0
lol, sure we do.

I find it interesting that most of you bashing the repubs have ignored Matt's comment that the ONLY reason why Obama is going to veto this is that it doesn't contain enough oversight, ie regulation. lol Otherwise, he is not opposed to the bill.

Okay, so it goes to the Senate, they add in more oversight and, voila, Obama signs. Will you still blame the repubs?
Will I still blame the republicans for taking another crack at my privacy and civil liberty. Yes. There does happen to be a difference in the amount from each side voting for it. 42 democrats vs how many republicans. On the other hand those 42 democrats are in my mind wrong. Would I be surprised that Obama signed this. Not really he is one of the most Corporatist presidents yet.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,872
44
91
Disgusting, but not terribly surprising. Of course Democrats will try to pin the death of privacy on Republicans, while Republicans were against SOPA and Democrats largely supported SOPA.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both parties want to give the federal government control over every aspect of our lives.
Wasn't the SOPA legislation started by a republican? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Congresspersons_who_support_or_oppose_SOPA/PIPA 51 Rs opposed as well as 49 Ds. Somehow this is a Democrat legislation???
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
No, you go fuck yourself.

The law that this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, wants makes this one that just passed in the House look like reguations to control a third grade recess vice what the Fool wanted.....which is more akin to the SS taking over a nation and killing off the Jews.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,323
126
Honestly, I no longer think even that would fix it. A convention would be dominated by the same special interests and their servants because most Americans are too apathetic and ignorant. As long as their televisions work and they have beer in the fridge, they're content to have their future sold out from under them. I don't know how we change this.
Make the Constitutional convention into a reality show and air it during prime time.
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
71
No, you go fuck yourself.

The law that this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, wants makes this one that just passed in the House look like reguations to control a third grade recess vice what the Fool wanted.....which is more akin to the SS taking over a nation and killing off the Jews.
What the fuck is this shit? D:
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Except no, it's not.

For example, as Obama said, 'women are not a special interest group'.

You might say 'labor' is an 'interest group', but really, which more represents the American people - labor, or interests such as 'the 1%' or big Wall Street firms?

Ya, Obama had big Wall Street backing over McCain in 2008 -the Democrats have a mixed record there, but look at the Porgressive Caucus, and Wall Street switched to Romney now.

A 'mixed record' for a party is a lot better than one that's not split on the wrong side.

We can agree that we have a big problem with corrupt interests' money dominating our elections, but the only group in Congress against that is the Progressive Caucus IMO.

So, do you oppose them - following where the money directs you for your support - or do you support them, despite their not having the big budget marketing, just good policies?

I think the issue is systemic in nature and requires balance, I think the answer is to get rid of ALL lobby, publicly fund campaigns. Thats the starting point, we also need to rid our constituion of corporate personhood.

Our election cycle is funded by %.05 of our population and we have a government thats works for them. Sure there are exceptions. But they are inefective when the system is corrupt.

this isnt a %99 vs. 1% this is all of us vs the influence of %.05.

Sure folks arent going to like chipping in say 10 bucks at tax time to fund elections, but its way fucking better than what were stuck with now.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
No, you go fuck yourself.

The law that this Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, wants makes this one that just passed in the House look like reguations to control a third grade recess vice what the Fool wanted.....which is more akin to the SS taking over a nation and killing off the Jews.
lol@u
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY