Fiurst SOPA, then PIPA, now they are trying with CISPA.

[Bubblehead1980]

Once again, our government is out of control.They could not get SOPA or PIPA into law, so now they are trying again with CISPA. Just amazes me, the audacity of our "representatives" to pass such laws, both Republicans and Democrats.Spread the word, let's stop this before it's too late.:damn:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/

[yubba]

:hmmm:yep, why ain't I suprised that Mike Rogers { R-Michigan} is involved with this, after what is going on in Michigan, seems that the state thinks it can come on your property with out a warrant and destroy your livestock, under the guise of the feral pig act or the so called invasive speices act. An animal that is in a pen is not feral. http://www.prisonplanet.com/hogwash-authorities-kill-feral-pigs-in-michigan.html now I see why the government wants to control the net, my how the news or the word gets around. Just remember, can't be a communist and allow sites like this !!!!! Long live Subsim . com
If I lived in Michigan I'd be cookin pork till, bacon bits fall out of the sky.

[Tribesman]

now I see why the government wants to control the net, my how the news or the word gets around.
This couldn't be any better.
The crazy conspiracy theorist Alex Jones repeating some story about the evil americans taken directly from the Kremlims propoganda office.
Thanks yubba:rotfl2:

[Bubblehead1980]

Tribes, you are okay with CISPA?

[Tribesman]

No, it is ill defined, lacking safguards and oversight, it also would appear that it is some big business interests who have had a lot of problems with their illegal practices getting exposed that are pushing for this bill.

But don't worry, your president has said he will veto it.

[soopaman2]

It is funny how critisized China is for the "great firewall" they have. For the purpose of people control.

And the firewall corporate interests want to institute. For the purpose of people control.

No one can ever bash Socialism in it's worst extreme. As capitalism (fascism) in it worst extreme is just as bad. Just look at what the banks do, privatize the profits, and socialize the losses, look at how our health insurance companies jacked prices of American healthcare to near unsustainable levels for anyone who makes less than 25k. Don't get sick and be poor, you will be fired for missing work, then dropped from coverage because you got cancer. (most likely from something toxic the food companies put in your food, or underegulation of your drinking water by constant funding nuking of the the FDA or EPA).

Info is king, the "arab spring" started over the internet, and it scared the powers that be here, hence all the legislation to turn us into China in recent times.

[Bubblehead1980]

No, it is ill defined, lacking safguards and oversight, it also would appear that it is some big business interests who have had a lot of problems with their illegal practices getting exposed that are pushing for this bill.

But don't worry, your president has said he will veto it.

I will be shocked if he actually does, claimed he woulld veto the NDAA also:damn: However, if he does veto this, sure it will be an election year thing not a veto because he realizes it is wrong.Anyways, glad to see you're on the correct side of the issue.:D

[soopaman2]

I will be shocked if he actually does, claimed he woulld veto the NDAA also:damn: However, if he does veto this, sure it will be an election year thing not a veto because he realizes it is wrong.Anyways, glad to see you're on the correct side of the issue.:D


If he doesn't veto it, you can say hello to Mitt Romney (I am sure you are rooting for it now (** lighthearted Teasing**):O:

The previous "versions" of this bill, caught massive strife from voters beforehand and were nuked before they even got too far.

Gives me faith that the people (somewhat) still control this beautiful thing of ours.

From a political maneuvering point of view, a very bad bill to put up in an election year.

[Bubblehead1980]

It is funny how critisized China is for the "great firewall" they have. For the purpose of people control.

And the firewall corporate interests want to institute. For the purpose of people control.

No one can ever bash Socialism in it's worst extreme. As capitalism (fascism) in it worst extreme is just as bad. Just look at what the banks do, privatize the profits, and socialize the losses, look at how our health insurance companies jacked prices of American healthcare to near unsustainable levels for anyone who makes less than 25k. Don't get sick and be poor, you will be fired for missing work, then dropped from coverage because you got cancer. (most likely from something toxic the food companies put in your food, or underegulation of your drinking water by constant funding nuking of the the FDA or EPA).

Info is king, the "arab spring" started over the internet, and it scared the powers that be here, hence all the legislation to turn us into China in recent times.

Eh, where to begin? First, capitalism is not fascism! Second, I agree the losses should not fall on the taxpayer, but that is an example of the GOVERNMENT stepping in where it does not belong.Wall Street could not make someone intervene, they asked because well they needed money, but the government chose to bail them out because the people in charge(both Bush and Obama) have a fouled up idea about the role of government.The Government made loans that will never be paid back in full to be honest.Banks etc are businesses and are not going to to turn down the funds to keep their business going, sorry.Now, if we had leadership who said no, then they would have went under or found a way via bankruptcy etc to save and cover their asses.This was not tried, because Uncle Same just wrote some checks.

Health Insurance is a business that sells a product, unfortunately it is a necessity in this country but the majority of americans have it.Rising costs? Well you can blame Obamacare for that, it has caused premiums to rise already and will continue to if fully implemented.I mean these idiots tried to sell this a cost lowering bill but it has new taxes on medical equipment etc, which insurance companies pay for, which hospitals, doctors offices etc purchase, guess who the cost gets passed on to? the CONSUMER/PATIENT. There is also crap in there such as "nurisng workforce diversity grants" are you kidding me? Just a colossal waste of money all throughout that bill.I have read the bill, every bit of it, did a while back, it's just a crappy law.Blame the government, they are the culprits in healthcare.Most people who make under 25K can not afford anything other than basic essentials and a simple solution, if they really wanted to help everyone, would make medicaid available to everyone who wants it and can not afford regular insurance.Of course it would require proper funding but that would be simple.Healthcare for the current powers that be is about control, not health.

I agree there should be better protections for people who get sick as far as employment goes, esp those on the lower end of the totem pole but have to be fair to both sides.

I won't even touch the food supply toxic remark, not doubt there are things we eat that are bad, such as nitrates used in processed meats etc and wish could ban them but the info is out there, it's our choice to consume them or not.I personally do my best to avoid processed foods, but it is tough.Moderation is key.

I agree, the Arab spring did startle the politicians here and thus why some are trying to put mechanisms in place to nip any kind of "American Spring" in the bud.Obama claims he will veto CISPA, we shall see as he claimed he would veto the NDAA. Maybe being campaign time he will veto it for now, with a wink and a nod that if he gets reelected, he will sign it.A second term is going to be even more of a hell for the constitutional rights of us all if he is President again.

[soopaman2]

My capitalism and fascism comment was simply showing 2 extreme sides to contrast against one another. Both suck, we need a happy medium.

Sorry but I drink with the guy who pays my health insurance , and it has been too high long before Obamacare.

Mind you if single payer (like Romneys plan when Governor) got through as the president intended it would have crippled the healthcare insurers ability to gouge us, so it was blocked by our congressional interests who need, insurance and bank cashola to be re-elected. Lobbies broke the Obamacare bill, not the president.

To put it all on Obama is unfair, and inaccurate.

As for our food supply?

Pink slime controversy? Ammonia is ok in your chow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wshlnRWnf30

Other than that we feel the same way.
I am just more suspect of anyone who tells me all is well, while taking someones money and making it not well.

[Tribesman]

Both suck, we need a happy medium.

You are asking for trouble, asking for a mixed economy opens you to rants about you being a communist by some people on this forum.

[Takeda Shingen]

Eh, where to begin? First, capitalism is not fascism! Second, I agree the losses should not fall on the taxpayer, but that is an example of the GOVERNMENT stepping in where it does not belong.Wall Street could not make someone intervene, they asked because well they needed money, but the government chose to bail them out because the people in charge(both Bush and Obama) have a fouled up idea about the role of government.The Government made loans that will never be paid back in full to be honest.Banks etc are businesses and are not going to to turn down the funds to keep their business going, sorry.Now, if we had leadership who said no, then they would have went under or found a way via bankruptcy etc to save and cover their asses.This was not tried, because Uncle Same just wrote some checks.

Health Insurance is a business that sells a product, unfortunately it is a necessity in this country but the majority of americans have it.Rising costs? Well you can blame Obamacare for that, it has caused premiums to rise already and will continue to if fully implemented.I mean these idiots tried to sell this a cost lowering bill but it has new taxes on medical equipment etc, which insurance companies pay for, which hospitals, doctors offices etc purchase, guess who the cost gets passed on to? the CONSUMER/PATIENT. There is also crap in there such as "nurisng workforce diversity grants" are you kidding me? Just a colossal waste of money all throughout that bill.I have read the bill, every bit of it, did a while back, it's just a crappy law.Blame the government, they are the culprits in healthcare.Most people who make under 25K can not afford anything other than basic essentials and a simple solution, if they really wanted to help everyone, would make medicaid available to everyone who wants it and can not afford regular insurance.Of course it would require proper funding but that would be simple.Healthcare for the current powers that be is about control, not health.

I agree there should be better protections for people who get sick as far as employment goes, esp those on the lower end of the totem pole but have to be fair to both sides.

I won't even touch the food supply toxic remark, not doubt there are things we eat that are bad, such as nitrates used in processed meats etc and wish could ban them but the info is out there, it's our choice to consume them or not.I personally do my best to avoid processed foods, but it is tough.Moderation is key.

I agree, the Arab spring did startle the politicians here and thus why some are trying to put mechanisms in place to nip any kind of "American Spring" in the bud.Obama claims he will veto CISPA, we shall say as he claimed he would veto the NDAA. Maybe being campaign time he will veto it for now, with a wink and a nod that if he gets reelected, he will sing it.A second term is going to be even more of a hell for the constitutional rights of us all if he is President again.

This, Bubblehead, is exactly how you should argue your point. You didn't belittle those in disagreement. You didn't use any inflamatory language. You simply stated your point, much of which makes perfect sense. Here, you look good; you look educated and knowledgeable, which you are. It is a textbook example of good posting and if we had a like feature on this forum, you would have my upvote.

Keep it up. I like new Bubblehead. :yeah:

[Takeda Shingen]

Double post. First ever.

[Sailor Steve]

However, if he does veto this, sure it will be an election year thing not a veto because he realizes it is wrong.
And you know this for a fact how?

[Sailor Steve]

Double post. First ever.
Oh crud. Now I have to look back through twelve years of archives to see if it's true. :damn:
:rotfl2:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

This, Bubblehead, is exactly how you should argue your point. You didn't belittle those in disagreement. You didn't use any inflamatory language. You simply stated your point, much of which makes perfect sense. Here, you look good; you look educated and knowledgeable, which you are. It is a textbook example of good posting and if we had a like feature on this forum, you would have my upvote.

Keep it up. I like new Bubblehead. :yeah::agree:

[Bubblehead1980]

And you know this for a fact how?

Pattern of behavior for one, he threatened to veto the NDAA and then signed it anyway, the 2012 NDAA is unconstitutional and was unpopular but he still signed it. Obamacare is unconstitutional, highly unpopular and he knows it, just does not care.Obama knows what CISPA will do for the government power wise, he is okay with it but knows it's unpopular and in this close election year, if he does veto it, it will be pure politics, pretty obvious as it would go against his pattern of giving the government more power and to hell with the rights of the citizens.The pattern of behavior shows almost a contempt for the constitution and the citizenry.Perhaps he will shock us and veto this.I would not be shocked if he vetoes it now and then signs upon reelection(if he is reelected).Another scenario would be the bill is never sent to him to be signed although passed, then he will sign it later.I was just saying if he signs it, it's politics and not conviction, his pattern of behavior and just being obama, believing what he believes etc, shows this.

[Sailor Steve]

I didn't ask why you formed the opinion you did. That is fine, you have your reasons and they are valid, and your summary is good.

I asked how you knew it as a fact. As a law student you should know the difference.

[Penguin]

CISPA, ACTA, SOPA, etc.
Basically all the same: laws made by lobbyists, pushed through by politicians who put the monitor on a xerox machine to print out a screen.

If one law doesn't pass, the next bill will come, as sure as the next paycheck for the willing yae-sayers. So unless you kick out the lobbyists and their servants in Congress, we will see more attempts to attack the freedom of the web and internet privacy.

[soopaman2]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/002554.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/01483216577/what-would-movie-business-be-like-if-mpaa-succeeded-killing-vcr.shtml

Maybe instead of trying to (lobby/bribe) legislate against progress, you adapt and conform.

Oh I forgot, people like the MPAA and RIAA are irrelivant in this day and age. People can use you-tube to do what they needed huge labels to do, and (the real leeches) need to protect themselves (thier fleecing of the artists is at stake.). Kinda like how they tried to kill the VCR. Kill it dead! For no good reason. (despite it saving the industry)

It only takes one minor internet banning to set off a chain reaction of rights losses.

I cite the patriot act as precidence to how easily we will give up our rights when the government succeeds in scaring the rubes.

GREAT FIREWALL OF AMERICA, HOME OF THE WIMPS, LAND OF THE CORPORATELY EMASCULATED

[Bilge_Rat]

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

That is debatable until the Supreme Court rules. Don't count your chicken until they are hatched. :ping:

[Bubblehead1980]

I didn't ask why you formed the opinion you did. That is fine, you have your reasons and they are valid, and your summary is good.

I asked how you knew it as a fact. As a law student you should know the difference.

Evidence supports the facts as I stated them but I get what you're saying.

[Bubblehead1980]

That is debatable until the Supreme Court rules. Don't count your chicken until they are hatched. :ping:

Really, it is not debatable.Obama and his clowns are well aware it's unconstitutional, they are just being intellectually dishonest.The old, say something that is not true until enough people think it's true idea at work, problem is most people understand it's not true and it one reason the law is so unpopular.Anyone with a legal education or who has read/studied the constitution in depth and is completely honest, knows the Federal government does not have the power to compel a citizen to purchase a product, especially from a private company.The very notion is so absurd, it is almost laughable, except that it will determine a large part of this nation's future.Again, the absurdity to argue the constitution permits the Federal government that type of power, it just goes against the very essence of our nationI would dare say that if the mandate is upheld, the rights we have known since our founding are dead which is why it got such a cold reception in the court, which is why the Solicitor General could not keep his argument straight, it's bunk.Really is sad and insulting, all the time and money these people have wasted on this, but they could care less.

I have not counted my chickens before they hatch because you never know with the court, but I will be shocked if they uphold the law.Just sad the people in power would rather try to uphold a law via smoke and mirrors instead of passing a constitutionally sound law that would help people, but then again their agenda would have to actually be about helping people and not gaining more control over things.

[soopaman2]

Really, it is not debatable.Obama and his clowns are well aware it's unconstitutional, they are just being intellectually dishonest.The old, say something that is not true until enough people think it's true idea at work, problem is most people understand it's not true and it one reason the law is so unpopular.Anyone with a legal education or who has read/studied the constitution in depth and is completely honest, knows the Federal government does not have the power to compel a citizen to purchase a product, especially from a private company.The very notion is so absurd, it is almost laughable, except that it will determine a large part of this nation's future.Again, the absurdity to argue the constitution permits the Federal government that type of power, it just goes against the very essence of our nationI would dare say that if the mandate is upheld, the rights we have known since our founding are dead which is why it got such a cold reception in the court, which is why the Solicitor General could not keep his argument straight, it's bunk.Really is sad and insulting, all the time and money these people have wasted on this, but they could care less.

I have not counted my chickens before they hatch because you never know with the court, but I will be shocked if they uphold the law.Just sad the people in power would rather try to uphold a law via smoke and mirrors instead of passing a constitutionally sound law that would help people, but then again their agenda would have to actually be about helping people and not gaining more control over things.


This law will not be overturned.

You have faith in our government, I do not.

This law is a give-me to the insurance companies, which (as you stated in previous post) is why the rates went up. They knew they can grease the taxpayer, for every poor slob that couldn't get insurance before, at inflated prices once it was mandatory.

Single payer, like a medicare system, while not pure utopia, would have put effective price controls on our spiralling healthcare costs. Highest in the world, thanks to (yeah I will do it again) Healthcare corps.

It needs to be overturned. It reeks of corporate welfare.

(see that? Libbies aint so silly?):O:

[Bubblehead1980]

This law will not be overturned.

You have faith in our government, I do not.

This law is a give-me to the insurance companies, which (as you stated in previous post) is why the rates went up. They knew they can grease the taxpayer, for every poor slob that couldn't get insurance before, at inflated prices once it was mandatory.

Single payer, like a medicare system, while not pure utopia, would have put effective price controls on our spiralling healthcare costs. Highest in the world, thanks to (yeah I will do it again) Healthcare corps.

It needs to be overturned. It reeks of corporate welfare.

(see that? Libbies aint so silly?):O:

I do not have faith in the government, I have faith in the judiciary, the Supreme Court to be more specific.I have faith in the current court because even when I disagree with their decisions, they usually are in line with the constitution.Take the much criticized Citizens United ruling.I deplore the real world consequences(got us SUPERPACS) but their constitutional reasoning was spot on and they made the right decision, so like it or not, they made the right ruling because it would have been WRONG to ignore the constitution and rule based on their feelings and real world consequences as Obama and many others would have done, remember when he tried to shame them at the State of the Union that year? What a disgrace he is. SCOTUS's job is not to legislate from the bench and for the most this court has not done that.Of course, if the "liberal" wing werer running things, it would be terrible for us given the magnitude of decisions to come.This year we will have Obamacare and the Arizona immigration case next year they have agreed to hear a challenge to affirmative action and most likely overturn it since that wretch O Connor is no longer there.This court ruled police could not track suspects with GPS unless they obtain a warrant, which was a "duh" but the police ie the government, esp law enforcement will take an inch if you give them a mile, SCOTUS made the proper ruling.

Based on the propensity for going with the constitution in most cases, I can not fathom them upholding Obamacarte.Will it be a 5-4? most likely but will no doubt overturn it.The court is still pretty fair, they believe in rule of law, not mob rule or who is helping them get reelected, that is the system is beautiful my friend, checks and balances.