Harry Reid Wants To Try One More Time To Force Cybersecurity Bill Through Congress
from the good-luck-with-that dept
Despite the fact that his last attempt to shove a questionable Cybersecurity Act through Congress failed miserably, rumors are spreading that Harry Reid (perhaps at the urging of the White House) is going to try to use the lame duck session of Congress to try to get the flawed Cybersecurity Act through Congress once again. Given that those against the bill haven't seen any changes, it's hard to see a different result happening this time around, but you never know how last minute horse trading will fall out.
Reid is aiming to bring the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 to the floor at the end of next week after the Senate votes on Sen. Jon Tester's (D-Mont.) sportsmen's bill, according to Senate aides.It appears that Reid's strategy is to try to make Republicans who voted against the bill "soft" on terrorism if they don't support the bill:
Last month Reid vowed to bring the cybersecurity bill to the floor in the lame-duck session, saying that Republicans "will have one more chance to back their words with action, and work with us to pass a bill."This, of course, is silly. "Action" for the sake of action is dumb. Especially when it leads to passing a questionable bill that will have a negative impact on civil liberties and is targeting a problem that still has not been adequately laid out in any detail.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DAMN These A-Hole Politicians.Reid you should feel lucky I even bothered to Support your Democratic Poop Party.Vote GOP get screwed.........Vote Dem get screwed.
Next Election I am done with this stupid Garbage and will Vote for who best will Serve me and my Family.
Vote for either Big Party and Be Controlled.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
One comment per hour (per person), as I suggested long ago...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One comment per hour (per person), as I suggested long ago...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One comment per hour (per person), as I suggested long ago...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One comment per hour (per person), as I suggested long ago...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One comment per hour (per person), as I suggested long ago...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One comment per hour (per person), as I suggested long ago...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Please with sugar on top? Need a boot in the ass to help convince you?
I'd say it has more to do with your constantly being reported than the articles. Nice to see your nonsense disappear so the grownups can talk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
someone should start calling him a terrorist
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Crook?
Translation... In debt to the mob.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
How is he going to make them "soft" on terrorism? :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
To any republican senators that may read this:
I oppose this, and similar bills not because I am 'soft' on terrorism, but because I refuse to do the job of the terrorists for them by inflicting harm on the public I am supposed to represent, through poorly worded and poorly thought out bills aimed at dealing with a threat that hasn't been established to be a serious threat, or one that cannot be dealt with through already existing processes and procedures.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Advisors
This ain't computer science, y'know.
I think maybe Reid needs to get out more.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment