The Most Dangerous Bill in the History of the United States?

[ElOhEl]

at least that is what many websites are purporting. Is anyone familiar and if this is in fact a threat, it is the midnight hour as the procedural vote passed yesterday 74-25. Senator Coburn lists his concerns on his website

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...f-15e23b7100a3

Additional concerns by small farmers and coops can be found by searching S.510

Is this a true danger or is this fearmongering.? While our attentions have been diverted by TSA and airport security, are we on the brink of losing more freedoms in the name of security?

[Stew]

I don't know about all that but I would assume based upon history this bill if passed will be yet another big windfall for corporate America disguised as protecting 'We the People'.

[Midtowner]

Superlatives such as this almost always mean that the author can't completely be taken seriously.

And reading through it, I don't see anything particularly alarming. I can see how the ag industry might be upset about some of the features of this costing them some money, especially if they release defective and dangerous products into the marketplace.

But most dangerous? Good God. Remember, we once had a Civil War. If the bill probably isn't going to start a civil war, then superlatives seem a bit over the top.

[Kerry]

Great, so anything not starting a Civil War is not worth being concerned about. However, if Texas and Oklahoma form their own country millions would starve in the darkness. You are too much Midtowner.

[Roadhawg]

"are we on the brink of losing more freedoms in the name of security?"

Did you sleep through the Bush years?


Here's some additional info on the Bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510

[Midtowner]

Great, so anything not starting a Civil War is not worth being concerned about.

I didn't say that.

I said it wasn't as dangerous as say...the 3/5 compromise.

[Prunepicker]

"are we on the brink of losing more freedoms in the name of security?"

Did you sleep through the Bush years?

The democrats demanded something be done and W caved. Look
where it got us.

It stinks.

[Edmond_Outsider]

The democrats demanded something be done and W caved. Look
where it got us.

It stinks.

They did? Your memory is way different than the historical record. Did the "dems" also demand we invade Iraq? No.

[Prunepicker]

They did? Your memory is way different than the historical
record. Did the "dems" also demand we invade Iraq? No.

Not true. My memory is in line with the historical record. The
Democrats and the left wanted homeland security. It provided
more government control and meddled in peoples lives. W and
the rinos caved. You didn't watch the news back then, did you.

What does invading Iraq have to do with the conversation? I
mean besides nothing.

[Edmond_Outsider]

PP, I'm sure according to the what passes for history in your world, the "Democrats and Left" are responsible for bills sponsored by the GOP. I'm certain your rationale for this is the Dick Armey and Phil Gramm weren't "true republicans" because a "true republican" wouldn't sponsor such bad legislations. Therefore, the GOP = "democrats and left."

I get it now. "Democrats and Left" is defined as everything you disagree with. It doesn't actually relate to political parties or ideologies. These terms are merely catch-alls for everything you don't personally approve of, they don't actually relate to actual political entities or ideologies.

This all make sense now.