White House Threatens Veto of Cybersecurity Bill

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
More political posturing or do you think the administration will really veto this bill if it makes it to the president's desk?

The administration complained that the House bill, which has bipartisan support, would allow sharing of information with the government without requiring industry and the government to minimize and protect personal information. The statement said that if the bill were presented to the president in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.
 
Ya right. The president is a nothing. He hasn't actually stood up for any of the things he's talked about, near as I can tell. He claimed ot have real concerns about the NDAA, but signed it anyhow.
 
If they lied about vetoing the NDAA, why not CISPA?

War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.
2+2=5
 
While I wish it were true - it's probably a threat not to completely stop the bill, but to get a few concessions.
 
If they lied about vetoing the NDAA, why not CISPA?

War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
Freedom is Slavery.
2+2=5

Thank you, I was gonna write about NDAA. The Obama administration is so politically opportunistic, that they usually announce what they will do (leaning left) and talk about it only long enough until the media shifts its spotlight, then they proceed to enact the moderate Republican and anti-liberty policies they were just railing against. It's very predictable when you step off the Obama bandwagon.
 
It's unfortunate that so much crap gets tied up in these bills, like NDAA. And that goes for all of the crap that both Republicans and Democrats throw in there that force tough decisions.

"In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012
 
Yes, the administration is sooo concerned about the public's privacy, but just wants to add more and more government control over that privacy. He is all about adding more gov to everything we do, bottom line. I think it stinks.:mad:
 
"In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

In essence, he signed the NDAA with a little winky face next to his signature so it's all cool.

If he had reservations then he should have kicked it back to the legislature and told them to clean up the language in the bill.
 
It's unfortunate that so much crap gets tied up in these bills, like NDAA. And that goes for all of the crap that both Republicans and Democrats throw in there that force tough decisions.

"In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Yes, Obama publicly stated he has reservations but according to Sen Levin it was the Obama administration that demanded those parts be in the bill. Straight from the horses mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY
 
I just want to start the impeachment process already...on the grounds of lieing..hahah

Obama does lie a lot. He said he would veto NDAA and signed it under cover of darkness on new years eve while everyone was out getting drunk. I guess he thought no one would notice.
 
Obama does lie a lot. He said he would veto NDAA and signed it under cover of darkness on new years eve while everyone was out getting drunk. I guess he thought no one would notice.

No one counted on a bunch of shut-ins glued to their computers being around to foil that master plan.
 
Is it just me or does the OP's link go to the "scoop poop for free wi-fi" article?
 
He's only threatening veto because he's up for election this year. The writing was on the wall after SOPA and PIPA. He wants the youth vote and if he publicly supports CISPA he'll have all the Leftist college kids doing a WTF. It might not be enough for them to check a box for Romney, but it might be enough to make them not check a box for Obama. I guarantee that if this was his second term he'd rubber stamp it, though I'm sure he'd complain it didn't go far enough in giving him personal authority over the internet.
 
Ya right. The president is a nothing. He hasn't actually stood up for any of the things he's talked about, near as I can tell. He claimed ot have real concerns about the NDAA, but signed it anyhow.

+1!
 
No, politicians lie all the time. If that were true, Our jails and prisons would be half full of politicians.
 
He's only threatening veto because he's up for election this year. The writing was on the wall after SOPA and PIPA. He wants the youth vote and if he publicly supports CISPA he'll have all the Leftist college kids doing a WTF. It might not be enough for them to check a box for Romney, but it might be enough to make them not check a box for Obama. I guarantee that if this was his second term he'd rubber stamp it, though I'm sure he'd complain it didn't go far enough in giving him personal authority over the internet.

Uh, no he wouldn't. He would say that "he regretfully signs such a law into play, but because the safety of Americans are at stake, he'll sign it" while thinking what I've bolded.
 
There are, and always will be people that don't like our elected leaders. It doesn't matter what they do, or don't do; in a country this large, and this diverse, there will always be haters.
 
There are, and always will be people that don't like our elected leaders. It doesn't matter what they do, or don't do; in a country this large, and this diverse, there will always be haters.

Actions that threaten liberty deserve nothing but the utmost contempt of the citizenry, as do those behind such actions.
 
In essence, he signed the NDAA with a little winky face next to his signature so it's all cool.

If he had reservations then he should have kicked it back to the legislature and told them to clean up the language in the bill.

He did. They removed the part where Americans can also be detained and put it back on his desk.
 
Actions that threaten liberty deserve nothing but the utmost contempt of the citizenry, as do those behind such actions.

The only rights you have are those granted by the state, thus your liberty is defined by it. What is given can be taken away.
 
Shouldn't it be straight up illegal for a politician to lie? :confused:

No, politicians lie all the time. If that were true, Our jails and prisons would be half full of politicians.

Easy fix for that. Bring back public hangings. First time make them work a week of community service as a warning. next time take them out into the white house lawn, have every station stop their current shows and at prime time have them switch over to showing them getting hung.
 
Easy fix for that. Bring back public hangings. First time make them work a week of community service as a warning. next time take them out into the white house lawn, have every station stop their current shows and at prime time have them switch over to showing them getting hung.

I like you.
 
But who would decide what is exactly a lie and is it just straight they lied or they didnt or could they weasle out on technicalities?
 
Yeah, they stopped SOPA just to enact ACTA.
I doubt it will be much different with this, really unfortunate.
 
But who would decide what is exactly a lie and is it just straight they lied or they didnt or could they weasle out on technicalities?

public vote same way we do the elections. If you think somebody lied you make a complaint having to be able to show exactly what the lie was. Then come election time not only do you vote for who you want in office, but also vote for if you think such and such lied about a certain topic. those found guilty go though my above proposal.

If we think our election system is a reliable way to figure out who people want in office, i think it should be good enough to determine if they lied. will need to add a few more voting days however. maybe keep the spring one and the fall one regardless if there is anything else to vote on. bet that will help get more people out to vote.
 
The only rights you have are those granted by the state, thus your liberty is defined by it. What is given can be taken away.

My rights are granted by God. Try to take them from me and you'll see how far my rights extend, as well as my talons. Try to take them from those I love and I'll gut you on the spot. If you don't believe in God and use that as an excuse to try to take my rights I can arrange a personal introduction for you.

As for the State... read the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Try to get the concept of "consent of the governed" through all that pinko crap you've been spoon fed. If you're a statist socialist yourself, then understand this. You and those like you are going to learn the hard way that those who truly love liberty are not going to give it up without a fight. King George learned this the hard way a few hundred years ago.
 
The only rights you have are those granted by the state, thus your liberty is defined by it. What is given can be taken away.

Actually, my ancestors granted the state/government their rights to exist. My right to exist was a natural one that took billions of years to mature and stabilize.

Thus my liberty is defined by natural law, not any man made law. That said you're the prime definition of why this story repeats and repeats and repeats. Some forget, so a lot have to kill and die to remind those that forgot. Yet again your kind forgets. The world is owned by the most dominant force, humanity as a whole. Too many are forgetful of such important points.
 
If you don't believe in God and use that as an excuse to try to take my rights I can arrange a personal introduction for you.

If you believe in god and use that as an excuse to take away my rights I can arrange a personal meeting with the FSM.

Bad argument, keep the religious bullshit out of politics.
 
If you believe in god and use that as an excuse to take away my rights I can arrange a personal meeting with the FSM.

Bad argument, keep the religious bullshit out of politics.

I believe you have the same God-given rights as everyone else. In addition, I don't take away rights, nor do I seek to. Only the government tries to do that. Stop knee-jerking any time someone mentions religion. Despite what the education system would have you believe, not everyone that believes in God thinks their beliefs need to be forced on everyone else. Please stop assuming that we do simply because a vocal minority acts that way. Politics affects all aspects of life, including religion, so trying to exclude it from discussion is like trying to talk about the human body while ignoring the existence of the spleen. In addition, read the preamble to the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence. God is mentioned prominently, and the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion. Religion exists and is a part of this world that is not going to go away any time soon no matter how much you might dislike it. You need to accept this fact and get on with your life.

As for my point being a "bad argument", it was not directed toward you in the first place. It was directed toward that statist bullshit that Hamish was espousing. It's also not an argument, it's a fact. It's exactly what I believe and what I will do if someone tries to deprive me or those I care about of their liberty. If you consider that extreme, I'd invite you to read the Federalist Papers, in addition to Common Sense.
 
I just want to say I agree with this guy. I think the leaders should listen to him.

Dalai Lama: World belongs to 'humanity,' not leaders

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/25/us/dalai-lama-inteview/?hpt=hp_c2



F**k the government, politicians, and MW3 cheaters.

So revolt and kick em out of office.. oh wait, that would involve people getting off their asses out from in front of their TV's and computers and doing something about it, instead of signing useless online petitions people toss up.
 
So revolt and kick em out of office.. oh wait, that would involve people getting off their asses out from in front of their TV's and computers and doing something about it, instead of signing useless online petitions people toss up.

Am I the only one that's noticed that there isn't an "Occupy Washington" movement? Something to think about.
 
I believe you have the same God-given rights as everyone else. In addition, I don't take away rights, nor do I seek to. Only the government tries to do that. Stop knee-jerking any time someone mentions religion. Despite what the education system would have you believe, not everyone that believes in God thinks their beliefs need to be forced on everyone else. Please stop assuming that we do simply because a vocal minority acts that way. Politics affects all aspects of life, including religion, so trying to exclude it from discussion is like trying to talk about the human body while ignoring the existence of the spleen. In addition, read the preamble to the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence. God is mentioned prominently, and the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically protects the free exercise of religion. Religion exists and is a part of this world that is not going to go away any time soon no matter how much you might dislike it. You need to accept this fact and get on with your life.

As for my point being a "bad argument", it was not directed toward you in the first place. It was directed toward that statist bullshit that Hamish was espousing. It's also not an argument, it's a fact. It's exactly what I believe and what I will do if someone tries to deprive me or those I care about of their liberty. If you consider that extreme, I'd invite you to read the Federalist Papers, in addition to Common Sense.

History? I have a Christian school by me that has taught the kids for years to hate all that don't go to heir school. Then know of two Calvery churches that spread hate messages to their members. One states that you should not work for a company that hires Catholics, does business with companies owned by Catholics, how you should beat up and injure Catholics. If you see a catholic woman getting beat and raped you should help the people attacking her but not actually rape her yourself as God wants you to help her be punished but doesn't want you to have sex with them in any manor. The other one is Antijewish and has similar thoughts as the other, but with jews instead of catholic. So no, it isn't just what the education system teaches. That really is how a lot of churches teach their followers in areas. Either you follow our teachings or you are to be hated and treated like shit.
 
Am I the only one that's noticed that there isn't an "Occupy Washington" movement? Something to think about.

i guess all the "hippies" (according to many here the only people who protest) live in new york and other areas, far from Washington :D
 
Back
Top