Would YOU vote against the Port Security bill / UIGEA? [Archive]

Wake up CALL

10-26-2006, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The poker legislation aside the bill was not a good bill as far as protecting our ports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some inside information on an imminent attack that will circumvent the proposed safeguards? If so you might want to notify Homeland Security. Or is it more likely you never read the bill in the first place? Just want to be sure where you are coming from.

EgoSlasher

10-26-2006, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The poker legislation aside the bill was not a good bill as far as protecting our ports.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some inside information on an imminent attack that will circumvent the proposed safeguards? If so you might want to notify Homeland Security. Or is it more likely you never read the bill in the first place? Just want to be sure where you are coming from.

[/ QUOTE ]

While your scathing sarcasm was great, go read the objections the Rep. from Massachussetts raised when the bill was voted in. But then again he's probably wrong and you know a lot more about politics and homeland security than he does.

edit: Seriously don't be so dense, only scanning containers after they have arrived in port does about nothing to prevent a nuclear bomb going off when it arrives.

Mendacious

10-26-2006, 05:02 PM

I voted no. I would have appreciated a filibuster though.

As unethical as I think what Frist did was, I don't think I could have voted against the bill. The principle reason is that all the UIGEA does is reinforce State laws which the voter's in the States have approved, and which they have the power to change. Do I want the Fed's enforcing State laws, no! But, it is hard to get bent out of shape about this from a protecting freedom angle when it simply enforces state law. I think the place to attack this is at the State or Court level-- and hopefully the next administration will tell the DOJ to give this law no priority and it will receive no funding.

That said, I am still furious with Frist and the Republicans for tacking this onto a necessary bill and I plan to vote them out the extent I can.

Wake up CALL

10-26-2006, 05:20 PM

So to be clear your answer is no, since it appears you did not read the bill itself. I was confident this was so. Actually I'm pretty sure I know more about a lot of subjects than any politician from Mass.

kidpokeher

10-26-2006, 06:30 PM

Yes, and all this "they had to vote for it" chatter is crap. They could have easily sent it back and made them remove UIGEA. Plus, all this talk about how it would have affected the reelection campaigns is meaningless. In case you haven't noticed, all these political ads are lies anyway. In other words, even if you vote FOR the bill, your opponent will find some other way to paint you as soft on domestic security.

Gonzo Joker

10-26-2006, 06:45 PM

Yes, of course I would have voted against it. One, I would not vote for any anti-freedom legislation, or any bill that had such anti-freedom legislation attached.

Two, the so-called "Port Security Bill" will do nothing to keep the USA safe, so long as it continues to donate billions of dollars to Israel's genocide campaign in Palestine and Lebanon on an annual basis.

BJK

10-26-2006, 07:02 PM

This is quite a good question. If someone had made a good argument to me about the hypocracy of the UIGEA section of the bill, I really don't think I could have voted for it with a clear conscience. If the UIGEA was consistant in dealing with ALL types of internet gambling (not allowing loopholes for certain rigged games that line the politician's pockets), I could vote "yes" with a clear conscience.

There is a reason I'm not in Washington, though. I'd be at the podium arguing my point to my constituents, and no one would be able to get past the world "gambling".

BHold

10-26-2006, 07:10 PM

What exactly will this bill do except waste 400 Billion on basically nothing? "Security" measures are nothing more than trying to convince the public they are being protected by the government. They babble on and on about all the "terrorists" and then explain how they're helping us to keep them away. If there were some group that wanted to do something against America is this bill going to slow down anyone with half a brain? Prolly not, but it helps them get votes.

ShakeZula06

10-26-2006, 07:14 PM

I was against the Port Security bill anyways, so it's a no brainer.

ubercuber

10-26-2006, 08:24 PM

I would last exactly thirty seconds in Washington because I would not go for any of this BS legislation that serves to promote political ambition or pacify the minority viewpoint for votes.

I would vote against.

I can see alot of people thinking "Hey, it's going to pass anyway... why stick my neck out?" or "They might call me soft on terror!" Those are the people that need to be bounced.

Stupid stuff will keep getting attatched to must pass bills as long as those bills keep passing.

I have a lot more respect for a polition who says "I wanted to vote for that bill, but they F'd it up" than the cowards who say "Yeah that part is total BS, but I liked the other part so much, and I didn't want to appear _______."

How about appearing like you have a backbone?

dnord

10-26-2006, 09:16 PM

What purpose does this serve?

UIGEA was attached to a bill that was going to pass. Even if it didn't happen then, UIGEA was viewed as a bill that Congress generally didn't disagree with, but didn't prioritize passing. So we could have hung our hopes on them being too busy to pass it each year (which seemed to work last year), but what kind of activism is that?

And what kind of activism is this?

"Congress overstepped its bounds in spilling that milk."
"That jerk just spilled the milk so he could be President."
"Sad that you have spill milk in this country to get attention."
"Let's all band together so that milk is never spilled again."

Cripes, the milk is spilled already. Let's find another way to help.

EgoSlasher

10-26-2006, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So to be clear your answer is no, since it appears you did not read the bill itself. I was confident this was so. Actually I'm pretty sure I know more about a lot of subjects than any politician from Mass.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to be clear, yes I have read the bill, I never said I didn't. I do however find it amazing you can win at poker with an ego like that.

Artsemis

10-27-2006, 02:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and all this "they had to vote for it" chatter is crap. They could have easily sent it back and made them remove UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was voted right before election time recess. Perhaps this would have been in their minds... I doubt it, but is it possible more would have voted against it if they wasn't about to take a recess? Not to mention the votes they pick up for their vote on the port security bill.

Squarehoop1

10-28-2006, 08:57 AM

Your question is too basic. Why couldn't they vote against it and force a second vote with the legislation removed? More commonly, they all can apply pressure to their leadership to keep the legislation from being attached in the first place. Why don't you post another question: "Should the saftey of our country be used as a political tool to gain votes in the nest election?"

chezlaw

10-28-2006, 10:23 AM

Of course I would. Ignore the specifics and consider a vital piece of legislation wanted by nearly everyone used to force through a bad bit of legislation wanted by virtually no-one.

If its voted down what do you think will happen? The vital bit of legidslation that everybody wants wont get thrown away, it will come back without the bad attachment.

Even better, if it was known that we wont stand for such crappy practice they wouldn't do it in the first place.

Its the lack of principles and balls that allows our systems of governments to have become such a crap-fest.

chez

FearNoEvil

10-28-2006, 11:02 AM

Senator 1: "I would like to tack on the 'Child Molestation Enabling Act and Murder Funding Act' as a rider to the port security bill.

Senator 2: "Hmmmm....We need to defend our ports, so I vote yes."

_____________________________

Seems like a bad way to make laws to me.

dave1mo

10-28-2006, 11:16 AM

Did this legislation arise due to the Arab company purchasing rights to ports in the US? I remember that issue foggily, and am not sure.

*TT*

10-28-2006, 12:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was against the Port Security bill anyways, so it's a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I haven't heard any pros or cons against it. It does "look" like a pandering vote pre-election time, but I don't know what the bill contains in regards to port security. I do know our ports are very insecure and funding must be assigned but I don't know how the funding should be spent.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

Synergistic Explosions

10-28-2006, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Did this legislation arise due to the Arab company purchasing rights to ports in the US? I remember that issue foggily, and am not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Some Arab state controlled companies donated huge amounts to the GOP and got Bush's approval to run several important ports all over the country. However, for some reason, there was a bit of a fuss made and they had to back down on Arab controlled ports. I don't know if the Arab companies got a refund for all the money they donated to politicians.

jj_frap

10-28-2006, 04:26 PM

Yes I would. I do not oppose funding for port security but I do oppose the principle of special interests adding unrelated riders to bills in order to further their agenda.

If an idea isn't good/important enough to pass or fail on its own merits, it isn't good or important enough to pass at all.

(And yes, I am aware that there are other riders that relate to neither port security nor online gambling in this bill.)

Paxosmotic

10-28-2006, 05:56 PM

I don't see how there's even anything to discuss here. The port legislation bill is great, but it had a measure attached to it that limited freedom. This is a clear vote against it. If they come up with a bill that gives everyone in the country a million dollars but legalizes pedophilia, I'm going to vote against that, too. Freedom is more important than safety, no matter how many people die.

Artsemis

10-29-2006, 10:13 AM

Squarehoop1 wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you post another question: "Should the saftey of our country be used as a political tool to gain votes in the nest election?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I dont like biased questions.

Artsemis

10-29-2006, 10:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If they come up with a bill that gives everyone in the country a million dollars but legalizes pedophilia, I'm going to vote against that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the worst analogy ever.

[ QUOTE ]
my Freedom is more important than others' safety, no matter how many people die, giving up thiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

ASD99

10-30-2006, 01:35 AM

I don't agree with how the IG language was added to the bill and the fact that this happens all the time. If I was a senator however, I personally don't think that this "other" lanuage would make me not vote for such an important bill. I would though vote against the IG language being added but once it is already in I would vote Yes to the bill.

this is exactly how i feel:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nb1pzayqPaI

catalyst

10-30-2006, 04:57 AM

Riders happen all the time. The poker legislation in this bill is relatively unimportant to anyone who isn't a serious online player. If senators filibustered riders frequently nothing would get done. Voting against these kinds of bills is what hurts a politician when they go up for re-election. That said, it would be nice to somehow remove last minute, unrelated riders entirely from the legislative process...

ShakeZula06

10-30-2006, 05:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was against the Port Security bill anyways, so it's a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I haven't heard any pros or cons against it. It does "look" like a pandering vote pre-election time, but I don't know what the bill contains in regards to port security. I do know our ports are very insecure and funding must be assigned but I don't know how the funding should be spent.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
It's more and more regulations on private businesses based on a fake threat, and the only reason it's being passed is so that those who vote for it can claim to be tough on terrorism and slime those who have the balls to vote against it as being weak on terrorism.

edit: also, why do you think that ports are insecure.

bqtrain

10-30-2006, 01:48 PM

Given the fact that I'm pro-democracy, I would have to vote against this bill. I don't know how anyone can justify a system which allows legislation to be passed which doesn't have to be debated on it's own merits. I'd also have to vote against this bill because it is obvious that almost no one in our Senate had ample time to read and study the entire bill before it was passed if the gambling part was added at the last moment. Maybe this is common sense, but I would think that Senators should have access to the final version of a bill for at least a week before they can make an educated decision on a bill. I guess that isn't really relevant if their decisions are made for them.

SenorBeef

10-30-2006, 02:25 PM

You people that are for this apparently think that if the bill was voted down, it could never be voted on again, and the oh my god we might as well invite Osama to hang out!

BS. This is the sort of reasoning that leads to our legal system being so screwed up in the first place. You guys are actually advocating the sort of self-serving, dishonest, spineless BS that result in bigger, more invasive government.

Let's write up a "don't stomp puppies" act wherein we dictate that one out of every 1000 people will be executed at random. After all, you've got to vote for it, otherwise you want people to stomp puppies OMG!!!

BugsBunny

10-30-2006, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Riders happen all the time. The poker legislation in this bill is relatively unimportant to anyone who isn't a serious online player. If senators filibustered riders frequently nothing would get done. Voting against these kinds of bills is what hurts a politician when they go up for re-election. That said, it would be nice to somehow remove last minute, unrelated riders entirely from the legislative process...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again if riders got filibustered all the time then maybe they would eventually figure it out and, god forbid, stop attaching riders that have nothing to do with the actual bill?

And senators should care more about doing what's right as opposed to being re-elected, although I realize that that's a pipe dream (in most cases). But then again maybe, just maybe, the people would actually understand and support them if they explained what they were doing and why.

And yes - I realize the above is unrealistic. But it shouldn't be.

BugsBunny

10-30-2006, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they come up with a bill that gives everyone in the country a million dollars but legalizes pedophilia, I'm going to vote against that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the worst analogy ever.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.. Benjamin Franklin (most likely)

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp - and the port security bill, as written, definitely falls in the category of "a little temporary safety". Or, to be more exact, the illusion of safety using smoke and mirrors. The fact of the matter is that the bill will do next to nothing to actually help port security (at least when it comes to nukes etc). It will, however, make a lot of money for a few people.

Scanning for radiation, after the ship has arrived, is ludicrous. Especially with technology that is both expensive and still not very effective.

The GAO has said that they're not cost effective (http://portsecuritynews.com/news/templates/registered.asp?articleid=1267&zoneid=1)

My liberty = your liberty, and if you're too dense to see that that's OK, I'll try to protect your liberty anyways, before you wake up one day and go "what happened? - I thought we were free!!"

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom. Dwight D Eisenhower

And I'll finish with this one:
Life is a daily IQ test. Regarding liberty, it seems that most people are failing the test. It is up to those of us who can see what is right to make sure we do not give up the fight. J.B. Pruitt

KajunKenny

10-30-2006, 05:35 PM

Actually, there's no way they can make ports totally secure. I worked at a port in the oil feild for years. We were 4 miles from LOOP inc. LOOP inc handles about 60% of this nations oil. The Navy and Coast Gaurd are always gaurding the offshore sub-station loop has right off of Grand Isle, Louisiana. This thing has a 3 mile circle of protection, only boats that are approved are allowed inside this circle. If you are fishing and accidently go into this circle, look out because you will have some 50 cal machine guns on your ass in no time. If a terriost bombed just a couple of the huge pipelines heading from that station offshore to the refining plants, the price of gas would tripple over nite. How can they stop this? They can't. If they planted bombs on select docks inshore, the price of gas would also be affected. Can they protect this an other important ports, like those in Seatle, Washington or up on the East Coast? No, and I don't care if they spend 50000 trillion dollars.

That being said, if we spent all our money trying to stop this or all our time worrying about it, we would go crazy and broke (like this country isn't broke enough).

What Bill Frist did was [censored]. As someone involved in the internet for years, I know that money isn't being laundered thru poker sites. I could tell them how it's done. The problem is that the portal being used for this gives kick backs all the way up to the president of this country. So how do you stop corruption? All this is just smoke and mirrors.

Viva-le-revolution.
Edited to add - I know this because I filter money offshore and inshore all the time. I don't use neteller or firepay. You gotta be kidding me. Plenty of annonymous ways to do it. Only idiot politicians would believe that online gambling is a portal for this stuff. To much of a trail.

Wake up CALL

10-30-2006, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did this legislation arise due to the Arab company purchasing rights to ports in the US? I remember that issue foggily, and am not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Some Arab state controlled companies donated huge amounts to the GOP and got Bush's approval to run several important ports all over the country. However, for some reason, there was a bit of a fuss made and they had to back down on Arab controlled ports. I don't know if the Arab companies got a refund for all the money they donated to politicians.

[/ QUOTE ]

More inaccurate posts, the ports you reference were controlled by a British company (Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) which was then legally purchased by Dubai Ports World. Washington's Carlyle Group (an American company) is in negotiations to purchase the port contracts since the US Congress was unhappy with the Dubai purchase. It is noteworthy to mention that 75% of the US ports have the security outsourced to other countries.