Veto Threat issued against CISPA
By dark_joev
@dark_joev (3034)
United States
April 26, 2012 12:49am CST
Well Obama in an surprising act has issued an veto threat against CISPA. I call it surprising because he recently signed NDAA which clearly violated people's Civil Liberties as well as Constitutional Rights. Yet he signed it.
He has stated that this bill violates peoples Civil Liberties and that he will veto this bill if it comes across his desk. Now this might be because it is an election year and he realized that the Internet will destroy his campaign if he signs a bill that would effectively kill the only "free market" left in this country. He would also be responsible for the resulting backlash from the darkest reaches of the Internet. Can we say Anonymous getting a whole lot bigger overnight?
So what are your thoughts on this Bill?
Do you think Obama would actually stick to his word and veto this bill?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZ81H1WQag
3 responses
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
26 Apr 12
I've noticed he is using a lot of Republican talking points lately. And the American people are so misinformed and brainwashed, they will believe him.
He will double back if reelected and do something WORSE than this bill.
Never trust a liar.
and as for Anonymous, I was sent to their page last year, sounded good and I joined, Then I started reading further and quickly backed out of my 'membership'. Those people are whacky.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
26 Apr 12
Anonymous isn't an group they are a collective of sorts. As they put it a Collective of thoughts. They are actually a form of Democracy where if you support the action then you do the action. If you don't support the action than stay home. Anonymous is the GODs of the Internet because they have such a wide range of things that they do. Anonymous is anyone and they are no one.
“We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us."
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
26 Apr 12
I've heard it. And I don't agree that they are democratic. They are criminals. You don't solve problems of a moral nature, by being immoral.
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
26 Apr 12
Part of the differece is that NDAA gave decisive power to the White House where CISPA is just an intelligence gathering update that really doesn't mean as much to Obama (or any future Prez). So, yes, I think he will stick to the veto, but, as someone mentioned above, it doesn't mean a reelected Obama wouldn't want to push for something even more strongly worded later.
Since I haven't griped about CISPA elsewhere, I will add that this is a pro-law enforcement attempt to create a pass or shortcut around procedure that is already in place and working fine (ie: court ordered surrender of documents). This would be a bigger change than the one tiny controversial part of the NDAA, which basically just "legalized" the detention policy of the past 2 administrations hidden inside a military finance bill. (Again, I must condemn the passing of large, multi-part Bills). Hopefully a future Supreme Court can delete some of the garbage that is being passed through this period of national paranoia.
As for Anonymous, the problem I see is the modified proverb: If you stand for everything, you don't really stand for anything.
@honest_efforts100 (1607)
• India
15 Oct 12
During election year, politiians would want to be on the right side of a highly sensationalized issue. With the Internet being an integral part of almost every man"s life, Obama"s decision of whether to support this bill or not, will definitely affect his candidacy. Until now, there are still vague descriptions of this bill and it"s ultimate purpose is yet to be determined.
