CISPA may become law within DAYS; 112 co-sponsors in Congress now. IF IT DOES, ONLINE PRIVACY IS DEAD.

http://www.youtube.com/...jlUvs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAJk6VvDKlc

Remember SOPA? CISPA is the next attack on the internet.

H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
112th Congress, 2011–2012

To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.

The House Majority Leader indicated on Apr 19, 2012 that this bill may be considered in the week ahead.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523

We MUST act on this tonight and tomorrow to stop this bill from advancing to a vote. Make this viral, as we did with SOPA and PIPA

Call your reps: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Use downsizedc.org to send a letter to them as well. This takes only a few minutes!

https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/hands-off-the-internet/

If you do not do this, someone close to you will die in the next year and you will have bad luck for 10 years. Please share!

America, the land of the free :)

Viva le liberalism.....


::vomits blood::

I'm sorry KoH that you're a neo-con fascist chickenhawk. While our kids are over there fighting for our rights and freedom, you're over here taking more away everyday. You want fascism? Perhaps you were born in the wrong age and country. Instead of here and now maybe you should have been born in 1939 Germany.

i agree they are fighting ,does it feel better if you really believe they are figthing for rights and freedom?

i think someone doesnt have a clue how corrupt his government already is

ironic that you're blasting Ko because you feel his belief is different then yours. yet you claim your standing up for freedom?
doesn't he have the right to believe different then you? isn't that what freedom means?
pro tip. not everyone who thinks in a different way is a nazi

Thanx Popcom!, he also failed to pick up my sarcasm (I don't blame him, its hard to do in a forum) I'm from Argentina, born during a pro commie Gov, I know all about not being free, that's why I live in the US now, when I look at the left in this country and their policies, I see pro commies, I'm a Reagan Conservative (incase you wonder), I believe in freedom and our constitution, Gov is out of control in the US!!!!

+1 KoH...

I am not naive enough to believe the worn out propaganda that has come from both sides of the political aisle. I know that it's always been about the oil and making corporate industrialist interests (the top 1%) richer while turning the 99% into their servants. They have wiped out the middle class with their greedy ways while using our tax dollars to do it.

John McCain said it all when he answered this question: What income level do you think it takes to be middle class these days?
His reply: You probably have to make $5,000,000.00 a year!

I don't know about you but very few people that I know make that or more a year. Most people are not greedy and would be happy just to make an honest, decent living.

Class warfare is the biggest tool for commies in order to get your vote, don't hate the rich, they are not all greedy, every apple tree has couple bad ones, get rid of polititians who over regulate and make it almost impossible to build your own business by writing bogus legislation, go to the central valley in California, talk to the farmers, as I do every week, you'll see what I see, you'll vomit as I do!

I'm sorry I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. But I also have to wonder whether or not you actually know the history behind what I said? The US political parties have so polarized this nation by use of just a 2 party system that there's not much room to think independently about what is really good for all of us and not just the few.

They talk about National Security while sending our National Guard instead of our Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force over to Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they create Homeland Security which does nothing but hinder everyday people. We used to be able to drive to Canada or Mexico with out requiring a passport. Thanks to things like the "Patriot" Act, the "Real ID Act", the Military Commissions Acts of 2005 and 2006, we no longer have that freedom.

I believe in progress but I have to ask, can you really call it progress when you take 1 step forward and 5 steps backward? Our politicians have been steadily eroding our rights and our freedom. It's time to reverse those bad decisions so WE can all advance to the future.

"They talk about National Security while sending our National Guard instead of our Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force over to Iraq and Afghanistan."

-_-.....yeah thank god they stopped sending the Marines (they havent just fyi, all of us are still there)

"We used to be able to drive to Canada or Mexico with out requiring a passport"

im glad we can't just do that freely anymore honestly...

why is it that people will defend the rich saying stuff like "they are not all greedy, every apple tree has couple bad ones" (which i totally agree)
but when its a few bad degenerates abusing social wellness programs then its clearly a bad way to run things because of this or that welfare bum?
just an interesting observation in general. not accusing those in this thread..not looking to start some fluff...for once lol

Wartime, i think its interesting that you list not being able to go to Canada or Mexico without a passport as the - things in stuff like the patriot act... the freedoms that America as a whole has stripped its people of is INSANE. There's WAY worse repercussions then going to canada without a pass port lol

I agree with you, Popcom, the patriot act was yuki!, as for the wellfare state, well that's a can of worms, I can say that its a very slippery slope due to the fact that us humans are creatures of habits, right now there are more takers than givers (tax payers), I came across that article last summer, ill try to dig it up when I get home, but it was an actual document released by the Gov., once you get used to the handouts its by simple nature that we (humans) get used to it making us lazy, you can run your own experiment, go on vacation to anywhere fun you really enjoy for 2 weeks, come back and tell me with a straight face and honesty, "yay, I go back to work 60hrs a week"!!

The only point that I was trying to make there is that the National Guard was meant to do just that. Guard our homeland from attack! Instead, they create "Homeland Security" (a fiasco) and send Blackwater / xE into New Orleans during Katrina and Ike! They might as well be Homeland Gestapo considering they are a privately held (by Cheney/Bush) Corporation.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for our people who are in the Armed Forces. But, once they "cross over" to the "other side", by joining Haliburton, Caci International, Blackwater "civilian contractors", they become high paid mercenaries and are above our laws! I TOTALLY AM AGAINST THAT!


You're right. I could name off a lot of things that are really out of whack now as a result of all these acts. Such as them having the right to detain an American Citizen, without charging them with a crime, for an indefinite period and no representation. Another question Cheney was asked: "What about our rights? What about our Constitution?" His reply: "What rights, you have none! The Constitution is just another piece of paper that don't mean diddly!"

i need proof of that last quote WT...

and hell im probably going civilian contractor..why? crap ton of money to earn there

I gotta be honest. My life, and my "freedoms" since the Patriot Act was written into law haven't significantly changed.

We don't live in some fantasy world where Magic prohibits the Bad Guys from exploiting the "freedoms" people want to enjoy regardless of detriment to society as a whole.

I honestly think what a lot of people don't like is that there's a real chance they might get in trouble when they step over lines they shouldn't have crossed to begin with. Too fluffin' bad. Wah wah.

If you have nothing to hide, the none of this should be a big deal. But that's what's at the bottom of this. People DO have stuff to hide and in the name of the "Right To Privacy", they wanna cry. The Internet is a PUBLIC thing, kids. Why should you be able to say and do things on the Internet that you shouldn't say and do in Public?

/rant off

They can kill an American without trial. no due posses. Can and have. Then explained how its legal.
A lot of "Acts" have been passed without much of a ripple that are just CRAZY.

Story To Prove Cheney Did Not Care About Constitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvI49OyHFnw

Hmm...

One commentator saying something does not make it true.

Not that Cheney/Bush were great guys, but I think Bush genuinely wanted to do the right thing. He just couldn't figure out what that was most of the time.

No one in this country that makes under 250k per year should complain about the "Evil Rich". If not for the tax contributions of the people who have earned/inherited/stumbled into large amounts of money there would be no SSI, paved roads, welfare, and on, and on....

Class warfare is a tool to divide to give the government more power because the people are not united. The government should fear the people not the other way around.

The internet is a global, public place. There is no privacy in that format.

You should be able to keep whatever files, personal data on your computer at home and there should be no remote access to your computer, but if you post it, it is fair game.

anyone willing to give up freedom for security...deserves neither

ben franklin?

Not giving up any freedom to have peeps be able to see what you say in a public forum. I do not relish the idea of having "Big Brother" reading every word or comment I make on a forum, but in the end it will have no impact on me since I am not who they are looking for.



"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson

There is much worse legislation in the works to erode our rights. I really want to go on a pro gun rant right now, but will save it for another time.

"Freedom" comes with an inherent expectation that a person wants to do the right thing with it. America is becoming a country of what can you get away with and not what should you do.

problem is, the world doesn't run on good intentions..

there will ALWAYS be those who will abuse, twist, and distort anything they can to get their way. So even if you pass bills and acts with good intentions, they WILL be used maliciously and abused. So why in the hell would you allow laws to be passed that can allow someone to do horrible things, just because there is a good intent on the originator?


this is why coffee cups have to have a HOT warning on them. some ass hole will just sue if it doesn't, because he can lol

That is why bills like this get passed Pop

If you rad in the text of the bill as it is currently written it only requires intelligence agencies to share, information they already have gathered, with each other. Private organizations can opt to share information on threats they have stopped or on accounts, systems they have had corrupted. There is no requirement to monitor every day communication. The reports, monitoring, information gathering will be from companies like Norton, AVG and others that provide internet security services. And only if they choose to share. The bill specifically states that reporting will not be on a conditional basis. So the companies cannot report "only if" and the Gov't cannot say "report or else".

If folks take the time to read the bill I think you will see it is intended to help block threats to everyone's private information.

Trying to make it easier to find those that crash systems and make viruses.

bankers have become too powefull , only 1 thing that can stop them.

and you do know that they used Afganistan to beat the Russians now do U?!

Everyone knows that. Stinger missiles for the win!!

http://www.politico.com/...s/stories/0412/75612.html

:)

I do find it somewhat amusing that you say government is out of control, but you're a Reagan conservative.

You might want to remind yourself of who the first of the recent presidents was to completely blow up the deficit to crazy proportions. :)

Obama spent more in 3 years, than what Bush did in 8......, and Bush was a liberal compared to Reagan, don't get me started....

Bushes spending is STILL happening thanks to the 2 wars he started.
also, wasn't the bailouts already in the works when Obama got in? i assume thats what you are referring to.

What's your point? I said I'm a Reagan Conservativo, wtf does that have to do with Bush??? You people on the left are still obsessed with Bush, LOL!!!!

I remember when there was a political discussion area on the Earth2025 forums designed for this stuff to be housed so it doesn't clutter up my precious FFAT.

That is what the liberals do... they can't support what Obama has done, so they blame Bush / republicans / bankers and so on

fear/division/hate these are the tools of liberals

------------------------------------------------------------

has anyone else read the text of the bill as it is currently written?

-----------------------------------------------------------

and on a side note it was not Bush spending that was so out of whack to cause the problem we have now

Bush did much worse when he expanded the program that Clinton started to federally guarantee home mortgages to non-qualified/at risk borrowers (there are a lot of parts to this that were all broken)

Oh, god forbit we varify income! "Its racist" LOL, look where IT got us!! THNX BILL!!!! Best president, EVER!

We're obsessed with Bush?



You're the one who brought him up.

I'm not saying Obama hasn't spent a whole heck of a lot of money. I'm simply saying that if you're claiming that Reagan's style of conservatism is what you think is great, then you really have no room to complain about Obama's spending.

ok, this has to be the most ignorant thing i have ever read on here...
conservatives (and im talking about America here) have build the base of modern politics on fear, division and hate.

fear/hate of, liberals, gays, woman rights, immigrant rights, terrorists, Islam in general, the economic recovery, iran, north Korea, ect.

turn on fox news and try to make it 15m without them listing some great threat that is trying to kill everyone...

I'll cut you a little slack because you are Canadian and your opinion has 0 value anyway.

Your idiotic posts are more to do with your ignorance of the topics than any lack of intelligence. Your exposure to American politics is only what you see dramatized by the "News".

You were probably smoking weed and or popping pills when you wrote this. So anything you said is obviously not your fault.

Pls elavorate, I don't get what you're getting at, :/, I thought you implied Bush being a Reagan guy, by no means he was.

KoH: Not sure which part you're wanting elaboration on, so I'll do both.

On the Bush reference, I said I thought it was funny that you argue against big government as a self-dubbed Reaganite. You rebutted saying Obama spent more than Bush, then said liberals are obsessed with Bush. My response was that neither myself nor any other liberal on this thread brought up Bush--you did.

On the 2nd part, Reagan was what I would consider the first of the modern big-spending presidents. Both Bushes and Obama definitely fall into this category as well, but if you look at big-time deficit spending, it's a pretty modern thing, starting with Reagan, continuing with Bush and with Clinton during his first term, before eventually there was a push to balance the budget, which Clinton was clearly part of (although the Republican Congress was equally to praise for that). Then GWB spent away the surplus and under the Obama administration, obviously spending hasn't yet been curbed either.

My point is, Reagan was the first to start this trend. My thought is it's a bit hypocritical to focus on the evils of big government and deficit spending if you believe Ronald Reagan is an ideal president.

Khavic: So because he's Canadian, he's wrong?

Fox News is entirely about spreading fear and hatred. The "birther" movement was about trying to discredit Pres. Obama as a foreigner who would ruin what America was about. Every time Pres. Obama shows any sign of tolerance or respect for other world viewpoints, he's bowing to extreme Muslim viewpoints or Chinese communism or whatever.

For God's sake, there was a Republican politician that said in 2008 that Al Qaeda would be dancing in the streets of Pres. Obama was elected. THAT is fear mongering.

Perhaps it's because I am more liberal, so maybe I don't pay attention as much when a Democrat says something stupid, but I'd be shocked if you could find any Democrat or anyone from the liberal portion of the press who would say anything along the lines of that level of fear-mongering, but if you feel otherwise, please prove me wrong.

Feel free to not cut me slack as I am an American and my opinion means just as much as yours. But if your part about being a druggie towards Popcom was simply because he's a liberal, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm completely sober as I write this.

Khavic: You seem more reasonable in the other political thread that your response seemed here, so if your confrontational tone here was directed ONLY at Popcom because of some personal reason between you two, then I rescind my attitude in this thread (not the arguments, just the attitude part at the end).

But if you do think of liberals are druggie fear-mongering morons who don't have a clue, then nevermind any of this. :P

I see this quoted often. Quoted by a man who was 100% invested in overthrowing the Government he was living under.

These are different times and a completely different context than the times a Revolutionary Franklin was commenting on.

Bring Oranges to the discussion Celeborn instead of apples. I'm fairly certain that Franklin's commentary would have been very different upon the inception of the system of Government he promoted. I'm certain beyond doubt that whatever security would have been required to satisfy and ensure Franklin's Liberty would have been acceptable to him. Your logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority is a dog that don't hunt.

Twain

You present your opinion in a complete thought and for the most part I see the facts the same as you do. Our difference as I see it is on how we want to see things move forward.

FOX News is just like every other "News" agency out there. All news agencies are out for ratings. Plain and simple the air what draws people to the broadcast. They all pick and choose their stories to feed their viewers what they want to see.

Al Qaeda were dancing in the streets when Obama was elected. You infer that the politician was talking about streets in the US.

Obama standing with Calderon and bashing the laws of a state is worse by far than anything any other politician could say. Saying openly in a speech that Mexican nationals in Arizona were going to be profiled. Nancy Pelosi saying that Republicans wanted to kill old people because they opposed the Obama health care plan. All fear mongering done by the libs.

I concur that both parties exaggerate their point of view. The libs piss me off because they seek to divide the populace and move the US toward a socialist society and I do not want that. The conservatives try to unite the populace and maintain individual rights.

I choose not to respond to your last statement and question just yet. Though I do believe you were sober at the time of your post.

As for CISPA

read the bill..............

If you read the bill you will see that as it is written it only address information gathered by companies in relation to attempts to hack / access information illegally / break into databases that store personally identifiable information.

and reporting is optional !!

There is nothing in the text of the bill that gives any organization / agency authorization to monitor every day communication.

i'm just quoting the parts i'm going to respond to, so forgive my selective quoting. i fully agree on fox. they're no different than msnbc, except that they're more successful at getting their message across. it's like the difference between a mastermind criminal or a bumbling idiot criminal. msnbc does a crappy job at getting a united message across for a variety of reasons. fox does a great job. they're both trying to do the same thing, but only one of them is really successful, and only one of them uses a tagline like "fair and balanced." between that and my liberal bias, i have less of a problem with msnbc (although i don't particularly like them either, because i still see them as part of the problem)

Al Qaeda is in far worse shape now than when Obama took office. the death of osama bin laden, the arab spring, and the fact that the current president is much harder for al qaeda to demonize all weaken their stance. i'm not claiming obama was the reason for the arab spring, of course, but al qaeda is not better off because obama was elected and to say what that politician said was implying that obama was basically going to aid or ignore the terrorists that were interested in attacking us. i had a similar discussion with a former colleague of mine concerning a catholic bishop comparing obama to hitler. there are certain comparisons that you can't make, later implying that nuance was expected there. when you liken someone to a terrorist or to hitler in any way, shape or form, you are intending to make that attack. no one says: "man, this guy is a great speaker, just like adolf hitler!" or "man, this guy's followers sure are devoted to him, just like osama bin laden!" nuance is okay if you're using a far less evil figure, but those comparisons are never appropriate to make unless you intend to stand behind the implications of the name you're bringing up.

i don't remember pelosi saying your quote, but i'll believe it, but don't pretend your side of the argument is innocent. fox news and many republican politicians made claims that the obama health care plan would institute death panels to decide whether old people got to live or die. that's exactly the same thing you're saying pelosi said.

lastly, the republicans try to divide just as much as the democrats do. much of what the bush/cheney administration did was a "you're either with us or you're helping the terrorists" type of attitude. also, it's been the republican party that has been the party of "no" recently, opting to obstruct every major issue that the president wanted to work on rather than work with him. also, the rhetoric of most of the presidential candidates and of notable figures like sarah palin are always about how obama is an extreme socialist or a muslim or a foreigner. this is divisive language just as much as anything that many of the democrats do.

neither party is trying to unite. neither party is trying to protect individual freedoms. individuals within the parties might be trying to unite (i would argue that pres. obama, although unsuccessful at doing so, has done virtually everything in his power to unite), and each party is trying to protect CERTAIN individual freedoms.

afterall, the ACLU, generally considered a very liberal organization, is entirely devoted to protecting individual freedoms, but i doubt they take a lot of gun control cases. meanwhile, republicans are all about the 2nd amendment, but the patriot act is hardly a defense of individual liberties, and that was primarily a republican-sponsored bill.

it is funny that you call yourself a liberal. your comments reflect a moderate point of view.

the only part of your post i take exception to is that you use the Dem tag line of "party of no". can you name one bill that the republicans just said no to and refused come to the table and work on? the repubs have submitted a modified version of every bill and the dems have said "no" they refuse to make changes.

i agree that both parties are working to polarize the populace. the way i see it conservatives are working to polarize the whole populace against foreign groups who have openly declared they want America to burn. the libs are working to polarize the groups within the populace to fight each other.

i see the conservatives defending my right to have my automatic weapons. i am not a criminal and all of my suppressed/automatic weapons are properly registered, stamped and paid for. why should i not have them?

i see the libs saying that everyone has a right to a house and 2 cars and a college education. i don't see those thing as being "rights" those are things to be earned.

as far as Obama the person goes and what the talking heads (Palin and others) are saying about him, it is true. read the book Obama wrote. listen to his wife say that for the first time in her life she is proud to be an american. listen to the reverend at Obama's church of 20 years talk about how america needs to burn and that God has damned america. listen to Obama stand next to foreign presidents and disrespect the laws of states within the country that he is supposed to be the leader of. he does not work to unite he works to undermine and corrupt. he sends his minions to investigate self employed plumbers who ask him questions he does not like. he encourages bus loads of people to go to personal residences and protest and frighten children at home alone. this is not how you do virtually everything in your power to unite. he calls a police officer doing his job and protecting the property of a resident an idiot. he calls the supreme court stupid to repeal the Obama care bill if they find it unconstitutional. i do not see how you can say he is doing anything to unite the country as a whole. he is throwing tantrums at sheriff's in Arizona for upholding the laws of their state. how does any of this work to unite?

i guess i need a few examples of his efforts to unite. i just do not see it.

party of no examples:

virtually every obama nomination for different posts are being filibustered, even when there are no doubts of the person's competency.
The Republicans were the ones pushing for the debt ceiling to not be raised (even if you believe we need to get spending under control, the debt ceiling HAD to be raised, and our demotion from the highest credit rating is entirely because of this)
the DREAM act or any other immigration policy
heck, the republicans even tried to politicize and block obama's actions as commander in chief to help out in libya, even when he wasn't actually sending any actual troops.
7 of 10 Americans believe tax reform should happen, especially focusing on the "buffett rule" but the republicans walk away from the table every time tax increases on the wealthy are brought up.

meanwhile, he spent the entire first two years of his presidency trying to get republican votes for his bills. and he did this while he had a majority in both houses of congress. in fact, if you look up information about this, you'll find many of the democrats were quite mad (especially more liberal house democrats) because they felt they were being ignored in comparison to the time obama spent trying to court republican votes.

meanwhile, he has truly been a uniter worldwide, since all those countries that looked at us as selfish and willing to do whatever we wanted based on only our interests during the bush years have looked much more positively at us since.

i'd love to give you a list of legislation that has passed because of his leadership, but as i said, he hasn't been successful as a uniter at home because he spent the first two years trying to court republicans and then lost his majority in the house and since then it's been total gridlock.

Twain thinks President Obama is a "leader". Okay. Maybe my opinion of you was a little high to begin with.

A Worldwide Uniter? REALLY?!?!? More like the biggest ass-kisser in American history.

Good to know he's someone's President though. He sure ain't mine. Where it counts, anyways.

dragon: look up "U.S. favorability ratings"

virtually every country in the world polled showed double-digit jumps from 2008 to 2009 and the numbers have for the most part held at those levels.

as far as whether he's a leader or not, i think that's debatable. i think he's a highly intelligent man who is far more moderate than the republicans make him out to be. i also think that he's made quite a few misjudgments in his time as president that are probably because of his lack of political experience comparative to the two main candidates he beat in 2008 (Clinton in the primaries and McCain in the general election), but i believe, and most polls show most Americans believe this as well, that obama generally is a trustworthy person who truly is trying to do what is right for this country.

you want to knock his leadership ability? you want to disagree on certain policies? you want to question whether he's been an effective president so far? fine.

However, to claim the guy is evil or to imply that the current partisanship in Washington is his fault is crap and I'm going to ask you for a reasonable amount of support to back that argument up--and what sarah palin or rush limbaugh told you on the tv or radio doesn't count.