Insufficient...? Why do you say that?

The contention was made that Republicans don't care about online privacy. All I did was show that what they voted on did not have anything to do with online privacy and why the Republicans voted the way they did; that evidence, at the very least, belies what Jay and Sentios said, and they both said what they said without knowing what exactly was being voted on and why. That shows willful ignorance and a predisposition to judge.

Listen, I'm not disagreeing with you about this. If anything, I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian; I consider individual rights to be of the utmost importance and I think we should have legislation that makes this practice illegal (if it isn't already). All I'm saying is that to unfairly characterize the whole of a political party as something they are not without concrete evidence is absurd.

_________________

2 weeks.

{shrug} I know that now.

_________________

For this section, you're probably allowed to bump a 4 yearold thread, i mean look at this place.

_________________

This is the important part that got shot down, unless it's redundant and covered elsewhere in the bill what was said months ago still holds true you shit head. There is no justifiable argument against making it illegal for employers to require applicants to disclose personal passwords as a condition of employment.

>"shit head"
Hahahahaha You remind me of my nephew, every time he gets angry he calls someone a "doodie head." You're both so adorable.

In any case, that's not how you read the text of a bill. You don't take a small chunk of a paragraph and interpret it as having some kind of protection that it does not have. You read the WHOLE paragraph and see what that means in the context of the rest of the bill.

I'll give you another chance. Here it is again:
This does not protect anyone from their employers. All this says is that the FCC can make any changes to their rules without congressional approval. The amendment they voted on would have gone to a larger reform package, to quote your own news article. Neither of those bills had anything to do with protecting employees from their employers.

However, you should be pleased to know that legislation has already been introduced with bipartisan support into both Houses. And though the bill contains some "problematic exceptions" both parties appear to be onboard with it.

Any questions?

_________________

All there needs to be is one person from each side for the bi-partisan label to stick, where's the numbers at ruff?

So, no acknowledgement that you were at the very least wrong about what was being voted on or even why they voted against it? Heck, even I will acknowledge where I'm wrong if you show me actual evidence to the contrary.

In any case, it hasn't been voted on yet, and I can't find a full list of who is supporting it. Most places say it's scheduled for a vote "later this year," which doesn't tell me anything, and the Democrat representative from New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen says she expects the bill to receive "broad, bipartisan appeal" because concern about individual privacy crosses party lines.

_________________

The only part of the amendment I omitted originally was the who, the what was still the important part. I have nothing to admit.

The who and the what are both always important. In the context of the bill, the "who" is the FCC, and the "what" is the ability to make changes to its rules. You're acting as if the "what" is protection of individual privacy and the "who" is irrelevant, even though you're only taking the part of the context that you want to pretend was voted on.

This is exactly why you never manage to convince me of anything you think is important. You leave one or the other out and draw your conclusion from a fragment, instead of considering everything in context.

_________________