White House Questions CISPA Cybersecurity Bill

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Blah, blah, blah, talk, talk, talk. If you are serious about opposing CISPA, why not just hit the veto button?

While information sharing legislation is an essential component of comprehensive legislation to address critical infrastructure risks, information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation's critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation's urgent needs.
Click to expand...
 
lol @ "questions", sounds more like they are just trying to win the votes of the people by supposedly questioning stuff they come up with. yeah its a conspiracy,lol
 
What is so sad is the lobbyists and corporate sponsors of the bill managed to suppress most of the information from spilling onto the mainstream outlets. Now with one week before they vote on the bill, and little to no attention being garnered, it's more than likely going to pass, and with that more big brother patrolling the interwebs...
 
its better to stop it be for it even passes congress there for the "veto button" is kind a moot point
dont want to take the chance congress could get the 2/3s needed to over ride the veto
 
"must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens" -- yeah right. If the current and last government really cared about this, they both wouldn't be trampling on the constitution with the Patriot Act, Intellectual Property Czar and other actions taken that are actively working against privacy and civil liberties.
 
It's all smoke and mirrors. The Prez tells us all how he opposes such and such while he signs it into law under the color of darkness on New Years Eve.

Oh wait, that was the NDAA where he gives himself the right to kidnap, detain, murder American Citizens with no trial.

Anyway, you're dumber than a box of rocks if you think Obama does anything for the good of America and its citizens.
 
"If you're serious, why not just hit the veto button?"

It's called a last minute shakedown opportunity. It's gonna pass either way, they probably didn't even read the bill. They never do, the just ask the lobbyists who wrote it what's in it, or have an aid give them a brief synopsis of their particular take.

A last minute show of resistance gives them the opportunity to convince the public that the public's interest is at heart, and a last chance to shakedown corporations and lobbyists. It also give Congress more time to get their insider trading ducks in order before economic changes hit. After all, insider trading is legal for Congress and they are approached by lobbyists all day long.
 
. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation's critical infrastructure vulnerabilities
Click to expand...

Great, another unelected CZAR on the payroll for eternity...
 
Steve said:
If you are serious about opposing CISPA, why not just hit the veto button?
Click to expand...

Probably because the bill includes political shaming line items unrelated to the main portion of the bill, so if he vetoes it, his opponents can say "Obama vetoed help for our veterans" or something like that in their political ads, something he obviously does not want to see in an election year.

Politics is all foul play like this.

He's probably trying to get amendments to the bill added in congress to add privacy and civil rights considerations so he doesn't have to take a stand like that.
 
TheGer said:
It's all smoke and mirrors. The Prez tells us all how he opposes such and such while he signs it into law under the color of darkness on New Years Eve.

Oh wait, that was the NDAA where he gives himself the right to kidnap, detain, murder American Citizens with no trial.

Anyway, you're dumber than a box of rocks if you think Obama does anything for the good of America and its citizens.
Click to expand...

That part was removed before he signed it.
 
There is a simple reason why there isn't a knee jerk reaction to veto the heck out of it..."Money" Somewhere in the mix there is cash to be made and the sharks in Washington know the smell of cash from a long way off.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038623261 said:
Probably because the bill includes political shaming line items unrelated to the main portion of the bill, so if he vetoes it, his opponents can say "Obama vetoed help for our veterans" or something like that in their political ads, something he obviously does not want to see in an election year.

Politics is all foul play like this.

He's probably trying to get amendments to the bill added in congress to add privacy and civil rights considerations so he doesn't have to take a stand like that.
Click to expand...
Like a little more shame would would make any to O'mama difference since dead people, illegals and the festering puss brains that will vote for him don't seem to notice.
Besides, it's common knowledge that nothing's ever his fault, and if it is, then someone must be lying. :rolleyes:
 
A vote of "no confidence" should have been included in the Constitution.

Then we would have had a peaceful way to kick them all out instead of being forced to choose between "bad" and "also bad".
 
They're saving vetoing for important things like bills even slightly related to abortion, women's rights, the environment, oil, SAVING ARE CHILDREN, the poor, the black and the mexicans.
 
Azhar said:
That part was removed before he signed it.
Click to expand...

Got a link to it?

As far as I know, it was still in there, but supposedly limited or something to that extent. (Actually, I thought that was pretty much the core of the bill, so removing it would be a bill that does nothing but things that was appending, which they do a lot.)

That said, I think this questioning is more like either, a wait for a bribe and/or a delay until Obama's absolutely in office again to sign.
 
"I've got some serious reservation about this bill but let me finish signing this into law!"
 
fattypants said:
A vote of "no confidence" should have been included in the Constitution.

Then we would have had a peaceful way to kick them all out instead of being forced to choose between "bad" and "also bad".
Click to expand...

its there its called Impeachment its not just criminal thing
impeachment was put in for that reason
 
Elios said:
its there its called Impeachment its not just criminal thing
impeachment was put in for that reason
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section4
[/quote]
Article II Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.[/quote]

Seems pretty criminal to me.

...or this.
 
That snippet from the US Constitution should have been quoted, but I fail at quote tags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top