SOPA Creator In TV/Film/Music Industry's Pocket

First time accepted submitter en4bz writes "Representative Lamar Smith, the creator of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), has been consistently receiving donations averaging $50 000 from the TV/Film/Music industry for each of his re-election campaigns for the past ten years. Smith has received roughly half a million dollars from the TV/Film/Music lobby over the past ten years according to opensecrets.org. Check out the source link for a full breakdown of donors to Smith's campaigns." Speaking of SOPA, new submitter DarkStar1O9 submits this "explanation in simple terms of why this dangerous new bill in congress could result in the extinction of sites that are based on user-generated content like YouTube, Reddit, and StumbleUpon." Update: 12/18 20:42 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "Eric S. Raymond weighs in on SOPA and the question of why so many people hate this bill and not the dozens of others just like it that get passed on a regular basis."

Comments

LOL

[Colin Smith]

Well DUH.

Go vote for Ron Paul.
 

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Well DUH.

Go vote for Ron Paul.

It's RON PAUL!

Geeze.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Ron Paul because some guy told me to do so in the comments section of a YouTube video where a group of monkeys danced to Michael Jackson's Thriller.

He'll protect the Internet and stuff. I particularly like how he fights for freedom, except if it involves abortion, separation of church and state, gay marriage, gay people in the military,

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't vote for him just because you dislike his views on a few issues?

I particularly like how he fights for freedom, except if it involves abortion, separation of church and state, gay marriage, gay people in the military,

Sounds no different from the average republican here. At most, these issues won't change. He won't suddenly make it a criminal offense to be gay. And I don't believe he wants to make abortion illegal. He just wants to leave it in the hands of the states.

I'd vote for him because, for the most part, I agree with what he says. I can't say that's true for a lot of politicians.

Re:LOL

[evilwoodchuck]

I voted for Ron Paul because some guy told me to do so in the comments section of a YouTube video where a group of monkeys danced to Michael Jackson's Thriller.

He'll protect the Internet and stuff. I particularly like how he fights for freedom, except if it involves abortion, separation of church and state, gay marriage, gay people in the military,

How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay? It's inappropriate. It's not like we can separate them from us like they do with female groups (they have their own "flight" as we call it in the Air Force made up of all females). If we were to have a "homosexual flight", they would say that we were discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation - which would be true; do you have a better solution?

There shouldn't be any openly gay people in the military. Gays need to accept that the way they are is NOT the status quo, and they need to adapt to "normal" types of behavior and get out of this fantasy world they seem to think they live in.

Re:LOL

[SpeZek]

Your comment is the definition of homophobia. You're afraid of gay people. Quit being such a fucking wimp and deal with your prejudice.

Re:LOL

[ohnocitizen]

Hahaha, +1!

Re:LOL

[king neckbeard]

Don't confuse his personal views with his political stance. He may have conservative values, but he doesn't force those values on others.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that donations are not anonymous?

Re:LOL

[ninetyninebottles]

How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay?

Umm, what exactly is the problem with that? Are you afraid the gay will rub off or something?

It's not like we can separate them from us like they do with female groups...

Which is itself a relic of gender inequality. I say put everyone together and teach discipline. If you can't behave honorably and control yourself in a shower with your fellow soldiers you shouldn't be in the military in the first place. How can such a person be expected to act under real stress where their suppressing their animal impulses and obeying orders will save the lives of their fellows or prevent the kinds of sickening, dishonorable abuse that has made American soldiers so easy to hate.

There shouldn't be any openly gay people in the military.

There shouldn't be homophobes in the military, nor people who can't see past one attribute of a fellow soldier and treat them as a person, with respect and honor.

Gays need to accept that the way they are is NOT the status quo...

Prejudiced dinosaurs like yourself need to realize the world has moved on. Ignorance and repression were socially acceptable in the past. People of other races, religions, philosophies, and preferences are as much people as you are and if you can't deal with it and them, you have no place representing the United States of America in any official capacity.

Re:LOL

[InsightIn140Bytes]

Frankly, I view abortion, separation of church and state and gay (and shemale) rights as more important than copyright stuff. So no, even if I were US citizen, I would not vote for him.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay?

From personal experience, I didn't care, and neither did anybody else. When you're wearing the uniform, anyone else doing so is your brother or sister, regardless of who or what they are, and you count on them day in and day out, so you check the bullshit and get on with your fucking job.

Re:LOL

[InsightIn140Bytes]

What the hell showering with gays has to do with anything? You think they're going to rape you or something, regardless of if they're interested in you or even think you look nice? It doesn't work like that. Or could you not control yourself if you were showering with women? Because if that's the case, you have a serious problem.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just about copyright, but about free speech as well. And privacy. And getting rid of these idiotic anti-terrorism organizations that thrive on paranoia (and feast on taxpayer money).

As I said, those issues likely won't get any worse than they already are. Otherwise, with our previous presidents, they would have already done so. I seriously don't see the difference.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay?

Only a red-neck USian would see the problem in that statement as someone being gay rather than the real problem, which the war machine.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I can't support Ron Paul. I view the Tea Party to be major source of problems with my country and what a lot of people have already forgotten is the Tea Party was born out of a quasi-independent movement based on Libertarianism. Mr. Paul, a staunch Libertarian, may not be directly tied to what is now considered to be the typical 'Tea Party Stupid' segment of our population but he is still it's de-facto leader. He may talk a good game as a candidate but once you dig into the issues, his previous history and the current Tea Party are based on the same socially, financially, and politically conservative principles.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

If they aren't allowed to openly serve, you are still showering with them. It doesn't change anything.

The best solution is for you to go see a shrink and work out why you have such a problem with gay people. History has shown what that typically means.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't vote for him because I don't want to throw a vote away. He has always had zero chance of winning.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're pretty narrow-minded.

First, on abortion, it is uncommon, but not unheard of, for Libertarians to be pro-life. It's actually quite a defensible position if one considers the unborn child to be a person at any point before birth. Whether that's conception is debatable, but it's difficult to defend late-term abortion without some mental gymnastics that consider a fetus to be the aggressor and the mother to be its victim. If you want to know more about the libertarian case against abortion, this site is interesting:
http://www.l4l.org
If you want to know more about the history of abortion, the historically relevant concept is that of "quickening" which (disregarding specifically religious/metaphysical implications) would roughly be defined as "the point when life begins."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening

On the issue of separation of church and state, Ron Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.
That's pretty close to "Congress shall make no law..." Do you believe that, even supposing religion has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, our constitution gives the government the right to suppress it? It would seem that if you hold a stronger position against the imposition of religion by the government, that you would have to believe that the passive allowance of religious practice somehow infringes on your right to be a-religious.

On the issue of gay marriage, Ron Paul also does not oppose it. Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism". For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
Marriage licenses have always been state-issued, and legal requirements have always been set by the states.

And for gay rights in the military, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010. He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.
He voted for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

In sum, your objections are either narrow-minded or incorrect. Not to mention that national fiscal solvency affects everyone, not just gay people. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is serious about that issue.

Re:LOL

[IndustrialComplex]

(Caveat: This post was written while I was on the phone with customer service and probably didn't get the full attention an issue like this deserves. I'll respond to clarify if you have questions. )

His main point is that we are running this country in a much too centralized manner, so EVERYTHING becomes applicable to EVERYONE in the United States. One of the reasons I can support Ron Paul even though I disagree with a lot of his subissues is that I find it more important that we decentralize a lot of topics like this.

His main issue is one that helps compartmentalize the damage that a voting group can do. It is much more agreeable to me that poor laws can be limited to a subset of states than to have poor laws applied to ALL of the states.

For example, we have drug legislation that applies to ALL states uniformly. As a result, you have many states like Colorado or California in which their citizens have chosen to legalize Marijuana on a limited basis. You have other states such as New York or Utah in which their citizens have chosen NOT to legalize marijuana.

It allows local groups of people much greater freedom in deciding what works for them. Naturally we can come up with a whole assortment of issues which we feel should apply to everyone, and each of us is going to have a different set of issues. That's why I can support Ron Paul even though I disagree with him on certain aspects.

One of the reasons I don't live in DC is because I dislike their local laws. I live in Virginia, but I don't like their personal property taxes. I'm considering moving to Pennsylvania but their alcohol laws are something that has bothered me in the past.

When it comes to something like marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue at all, and in that respect, I agree with congressman Paul even though I'm on the completely opposite side from him when it comes to who can get married.

For me, it's much more important that we don't try to run every issue in this country from Washington DC, because to pretend that there is a uniform US culture, is really going to hurt us in the long run. We can see it now in these repeated deadlocks in which issues which COULD be resolved on more regional/local levels are becoming federal issues because we have given the federal government way too much jurisdiction.

It's more important to me that things be run in a manner which still allows for a chance to 'escape' from laws which I do not agree with (by moving to a different state), than the very real fear that a slim majority may be able to apply laws which will impact everyone no matter where they go in the country.

There is no guarantee that 'my' people will be in charge forever, and I think it is much more important to keep the protections for minority groups from being abused by the majority than it is to have a government which can be unlimited in authority.

It's a bit odd, because I think the best way to ensure that we don't end up with a LOT of bad laws which limit our freedom, is to not allow the federal government absolute power in all areas. In some cases that may mean some regions are 'less free' with respect to a specific issue, but it will also mean that we won't end up with all regions being 'less free' with respect to a specific issue.

Re:LOL

[Man On Pink Corner]

His main point is that we are running this country in a much too centralized manner, so EVERYTHING becomes applicable to EVERYONE in the United States.

There are two problems with Ron Paul: one, he is religiously motivated, and two, he seems just crazy enough to be sincere about it.

Certain things should be applicable to "EVERYONE in the United States," as you put it. Among them are educational opportunities. In Ron Paul's ideal society, a child attending public school in Oklahoma City will learn one thing in science class, while a child in Seattle learns something very different.

Making that happen is very important to the so-called "religious right" in the US. Keeping it from happening is very important to everyone in possession of two or more brain cells. So: no RONPAUL!!! for me, thanks. His idea of "libertarianism" is just the same old schtick of trading one liberty for another.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother to respond, you're now on my Foe list due to the fact you admitted you are gay and can't control who you have sex with.

I know you CLAIM to be attracted to females, but you also claim you have to force yourself to do that on a minutely basis (It is a choice after all!) and yet seem to think of everyone else in relation to you, thus since you feel everyone else can't control their sexual urges, clearly that is because you are unable to do so and of course every human is the same.

Gay people don't worry me, I can turn them down just as easily as all those girls turned you down in high school
YOU however do worry me, having to choose every moment of your life to be attracted to girls when you naturally are not.

You should probably stop forcing that choice on yourself, and just be attracted to which ever gender you feel naturally attracted too. You'll be much happier than forcing yourself to be with the gender you are not attracted to.

Re:LOL

[misexistentialist]

Feminist-progressivism has driven you insane. What kind of discipline is going to stop men from looking at boobs in co-ed showers (and a look, "the male gaze", is enough for women to complain of harassment)? Castration? But killing and dying takes balls, not a suppression of those "animal impulses". I'll agree that guys aren't that sensitive so mixed showers with gays might not be a problem, but sex within communal living situations will erode discipline. Bradley Manning is currently arguing that being gay is a kind of mental illness that made him unfit to serve...will gays always have a "get out of army free card" even after "don't ask don't tell"?

Re:LOL

[Vaphell]

amend the constitution to have it your way, problem solved

RP is a strict constitionalist and what constitution says (in plain English not in some wishful-thinking-mumbo-jumbo) takes precedence over his personal opinions because the rule of law is where it's at. Well intentioned interpretations that broaden the power of federal government to do good (the ends justify the means) start the slippery slope that sooner or later becomes the rule of men who don't give a shit what the law says and the rights you supposedly have (the patriot act, sopa, ndaa, ... ).

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's bad enough that we have to shower with all the blacks, and now gays too? It's like they don't even want any straight white guys in the army anymore!

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that all female soldiers are lesbians, so women being openly gay should be fine, right?

dom

Re:LOL

[misexistentialist]

Maybe he's just modest. It's weird having even a dog look at you naked; now imagine a dog that stares at your cock.

Re:LOL

[ninetyninebottles]

Feminist-progressivism has driven you insane.

Feminist-progressivism? It is funny that espousing opinions often written by legionnaire military leaders is interpreted through the eyes of such sad, pseudo-polysci nonsense.

What kind of discipline is going to stop men from looking at boobs in co-ed showers (and a look, "the male gaze", is enough for women to complain of harassment)?

Looking is fine. Staring, leering, and being creepy is disrespectful and dishonorable. Such people are a liability not an asset to a modern military.

Castration?

I'm flattered you'd ask my opinion. If it is the only way to control yourself, I say go for it.

But killing and dying takes balls, not a suppression of those "animal impulses".

Bullshit. Brave hyped up men and women can do the dying. Soldiers are built of discipline and obeying orders regardless of your emotions is what wins battles.

I'll agree that guys aren't that sensitive so mixed showers with gays might not be a problem, but sex within communal living situations will erode discipline.

Please. People have been fucking forever. A disciplined soldier puts that behind them and does their bloody duty when it is time. In their off time, let them screw as they please.

Bradley Manning is currently arguing that being gay is a kind of mental illness that made him unfit to serve...will gays always have a "get out of army free card" even after "don't ask don't tell"?

First, this is off topic. Second, if the fact that someone argued something in their defensive arguments on trial were a valid reason to change what we do, we'd all be up shit creek. Berkowitz argued that his dog told him to murder. Does that mean we ban soldiers from owning dogs in case one tries to argue their dog told them to do it and thus use that "get out of jail free" card? What utter and complete nonsense. You should be ashamed of such empty rhetoric.

Re:LOL

[Pfhorrest]

The problem with "leave it to the states" is that, though the effects of bad legislation are limited, the effects of good legislation are likewise limited. In a debate between "we should kill all kittens!" and "nobody should kill any kittens!", saying "lets let each group decide how many kittens they will kill" is practically siding with the "kill all kittens" camp, because you're leaving that camp to kill all the kittens they want, even if nobody else is killing any.

There are certainly some things that should be left up to individual or local choice, but those are precisely the kinds of things which there should not be laws about, leaving the right to do it or not in the hands of the people where it belongs. If there is something worth legislating, if there's a reason to say that this or that thing must be done (or must not be done), then it's worth saying that to everybody.

A compromise that I could see is, first, to return to the principle that everything is permitted which is not explicitly forbidden by law: laws are never to make something legal, as everything is legal by default, so every law is saying that you cannot do something (or refrain from doing something). Then, make it progressively more difficult to get a prohibition (law) passed at higher levels of government: it should be much easier to ban something in your city than in your state, and much easier to ban it in the state than in the whole country. But, conversely, each higher level has the power to protect the (to use a technical term) immunities of the people, their rights against the exercise of government power, by making legislation of a certain sort illegal within their jurisdiction. Thus, for example, by default smoking marijuana would be legal anywhere; most cities might choose to ban it; California may legislate that those bans are illegitimate, and thus every city in California would have its bans lifted. To counteract that, you would need to either convince California to change its mind, or convince the Federal government to pass a nation-wide ban, which would be much more difficult. But, conversely, if many cities and states are passing laws, say, obliging certain persons to remain on the property and obey the orders and be subject to the punishment of certain other persons (i.e. slavery), it should not be incredibly more difficult to get the Federal government to strike down all such laws than it would be to get a local city government to strike them down locally.

In other words, it should be hard to project power through the higher levels of government over the whole nation; but it should be easy to get relief at the highest levels from power projected at lower levels, thus favoring the status quo of liberty for all unless the issue is important enough to get the entire country behind it.

Re:LOL

[oldmac31310]

I voted for Ron Paul because a guy told me to do so in the comments section of /. where the guy said 'Geeze'.

Re:LOL

[artor3]

I agree with you on 90% of that, but the suggestion that it's gender inequality that men and women aren't made to shower together is bunk. It's not that the men can't control their animal impulses. It's that the situation is potentially embarrassing for everyone involved. Women don't want to be ogled. Men don't want to be visibly aroused in front of everyone. You're essentially arguing that we shouldn't need clothing at all.

When arguing with bigots, it's tempting to contradict everything they say, because you understandably don't want to agree with them about anything. But it's important to be careful not to let yourself slip into the same sort of thoughtless extremism in your beliefs that they suffer from.

Re:LOL

[AK Marc]

You won't vote for him just because you dislike his views on a few issues?

Yes. When people tell me he is "pro freedom" and I see that so much of his platform is anti-freedom, then there is a fundamental split between my opinions and his that he would never represent me well.

Plus, Libertarians are so interested in the wrong priorities. Cut government, even if it costs more, but not raise taxes to pay off the debt. "If the government was smaller (and we acknowledge it isn't small enough), we wouldn't need that much taxes." But we dug ourselves a massive hole with the debt and need to pay our way out. Cut spending and increase taxes until the debt is gone, then cut taxes and run a surplus. But no, it's still "cut taxes and borrow to cover spending." Where's a party that actually advocates fiscal responsibility (meaning high taxes until we pay off our debt, and then cut them)? My choices are: increase spending and increase taxes, increase spending and decrease taxes, borrowing more, or cut spending a little, cut taxes a lot, and still borrow. I don't want to borrow, so fiscally responsible people should be voting Democratic, sad as that may sound.

And back to the core of the "freedom" issue, what party will let me own a gun and marry someone of the same gender? Any party that won't is anti-freedom, regardless of how they spin their version of fascism.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You support a mother's right to murder her children?

  What backwards, barbaric culture do you come from?

Re:LOL

[Arrepiadd]

Go back 50 years and replace the word "gay" with "black" or "nigger" and you'll fit right in.

What's your opinion on "colored" soldiers? If you're ok with them, why not assume you may be wrong when it comes to gay people?

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it. You can put hetero men in a shower together. Same goes for hetero women. You can be pretty sure there won't be much sexual tension. But suppose you have a gay woman, who would you put in the shower with her? It can't be another gay woman, it can't be a hetero woman, it can't be a hetero man... so pretty much the only choice is a gay man. In these circumstances you'd better trust them that they are completely gay. Supposing you can do that, who do you put as the third person in the shower? Well, by now you can't add anyone.

It's not homophobia, it's a simple matter of practicality. You should quit being such a fucking idiot and learn to distinguish homophobia from rational solutions to practical problems.

Re:LOL

[Man On Pink Corner]

amend the constitution to have it your way, problem solved

We don't follow the Constitution we have now, so what difference does it make what it says?

Re:LOL

[ninetyninebottles]

I agree with you on 90% of that, but the suggestion that it's gender inequality that men and women aren't made to shower together is bunk. It's not that the men can't control their animal impulses. It's that the situation is potentially embarrassing for everyone involved. Women don't want to be ogled. Men don't want to be visibly aroused in front of everyone. You're essentially arguing that we shouldn't need clothing at all.

We need clothing for protection from the elements, for the pockets to carry our gear, for camouflage, etc. Aside from that, we don't need them and the fact that we have laws requiring people to wear them is part of the problem. In places where people are more relaxed about nudity they don't have these problems and people hang out naked together in mixed company without lots of "ogling". Go to a finnish style sauna and gee there's dozens of men and women hanging out naked, even drinking and none of the guys are staring or erect. That's because it is normalized not some magical taboo. In other countries you'd have the same problem if you allowed women to show their faces and as such they are banned from many jobs that would require it. Just because it is culturally taboo doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't overcome it in order to provide an equal opportunity for people to rise based on merit and thus have a more competent pool of people for each task.

When arguing with bigots, it's tempting to contradict everything they say, because you understandably don't want to agree with them about anything. But it's important to be careful not to let yourself slip into the same sort of thoughtless extremism in your beliefs that they suffer from.

I prefer to think of it as thoughtful extremism. The military makes allowances for our cultural hang ups and to be effective that is the correct choice. That said, separate units, living quarters, sanitary facilities, etc. are relics of sexism and sexism is still a huge problem in our society. Separate (especially in a situation with an ingrained cultural "norm") is inherently unequal. The amount of sexual discrimination in the military is dreadful and separating genders out is a big part of perpetuating that.

Re:LOL

[shutdown -p now]

The problem with "leave it to the states" is that, though the effects of bad legislation are limited, the effects of good legislation are likewise limited.

Such arrangement is less problematic so long as you have freedom of movement - people can move from the state where they feel persecuted (be it because of attitude towards gay marriage, oppressive drug laws, oppressive gun laws, or godless politicians teaching Nazi Darwinism to their children) to another state that better fits their ideal of what the society should look like. And, yes, I understand that moving is not a simple or cheap affair, but it it still accessible to most citizens. On the other hand, when the law is implemented on federal level, it's much harder to dodge it.

Re:LOL

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I'm personally not a supporter of Ron Paul. (My first choice for the Republican nomination was Herman Cain)

However none of the excepts you gave are true. He mainly says that domestic issues are not the business of the federal government, which would include abortion, gay rights, etc. Personally, I agree with that. These issues do not fall within the enumerated powers of congress as defined in the constitution, and therefore should be issues that the states decide for themselves. If he had his way (whether he wills it or not) gay marriage would be legal in more places.

And furthermore, he is one of few Republicans who support evolution. He doesn't believe in evolution himself, however he doesn't want that stupid intelligent design theory pushed, he wants the real science to come first.

Again no conflict of interest here, although I am registered as a Republican (the choices are somewhat limited, and I really do not like the Democratic party; tough choice because I myself am an Atheist) I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I think he is downright nutty on some issues, but I do want to clear the above mentioned items up.

Re:LOL

[geminidomino]

One that doesn't extend full diplomatic privileges to a non-sentient, semi-formed mass of cells based on archaic and solipsistic mythologies, apparently.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You can put hetero men in a shower together. Same goes for hetero women. You can be pretty sure there won't be much sexual tension.

Oh, please. I'm a straight guy, and I could take a platonic shower together with Olivia Wilde without even getting an erection. Do you know what the secret is? I'm not 14 anymore. At some point you fucking grow up and a beautiful naked body isn't enough to let the hormones take over control of your mind. I'd love to be with Olivia Wilde in a sexy situation, but I'm also capable of being around naked with her in a platonic way.

As a culture, we really need to stop associating nakedness with sex. Not only is it juvenile, but it would solve all these so-called problems you believe exist.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us are Jeffersons, some are John Adams... but all of us agree that slavery needs to be abolished. The trouble is finding what issue belongs where.

Re:LOL

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...I'm pretty sure that all of Ron Paul's beliefs come down to "Its up to the states' which was how the founding fathers meant it to be in the first place.

If one state wants to make pot legal or abortion illegal or support gay marriage then that is the will of the people of that state and if you don't like it? Well there is no law that says you have to stay in a state you don't agree with. this is one of the few places where i believe the invisible hand actually works as you can simply boycott doing business with a state, gay folks can refuse to vacation there, etc and you can affect change. Frankly I think its the ultra right wing fringe that keeps the issue in the media anyway, most of the rest of us frankly don't give a shit who you sleep with. I mean here I am living dead center in the deep south and our state capital has a large and very nice gay district. Everybody knows, nobody tries to hide it, nobody cares.

So frankly although i'm as left as left can be, hell my grandfather was a card carrying socialist, I have to say i do agree with Paul that the feds frankly have no business deciding such things that it should be up to the states. if you want to change things you gather petitions, get a measure put on the ballot, and try to get out the vote to change things. That is how it is supposed to work and at the state level it still can, its just that the federal level is got so much big money (as in TFA) that they simply ignore the will of the people. You throw out the bums and the next bunch is cashing their checks before they even get sworn in. I agree with Paul that if we are gonna change anything it needs to go back to having the power at the state level where the people can rally and vote, not at the federal level where you'll need sackfuls of money to even get heard.

Sadly though he wants to get rid of the fed which means the money men would NEVER let him be president. I mean look at what happened to the last one that tried to bring back the silver cert and get rid of the fed, he didn't get out of Dallas alive. Nowadays they don't even have to do that, they can just make sure their pets in the MSM just pretend the man doesn't exist. I mean look at how many polls the man has won or how much he has been able to raise and the media completely acts like he doesn't even exist while pushing ones like Newt or Mittens which they know have ZERO chance of winning jack shit. hell they might as well call it "The race to lose to Obama" and call it a day.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

gay (and shemale) rights

If you want to support trans rights, you can start by not referring to them with that awful slur.

Re:LOL

[xenobyte]

There shouldn't be any openly gay people in the military. Gays need to accept that the way they are is NOT the status quo, and they need to adapt to "normal" types of behavior and get out of this fantasy world they seem to think they live in.

They ARE behaving normally. They're gay and that's how gay people behave.

Being homosexual in not 'optional'. You can't 'cure' homosexuality. Most importantly for the homophobes: Homosexuality is NOT CONTAGIOUS!

Sure it isn't the 'biological norm' but so isn't so many other things as well. Just accept that some people functions differently than others, and as long as they express it between consenting adults it shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

Re:LOL

[Arterion]

It is much more agreeable to me that poor laws can be limited to a subset of states than to have poor laws applied to ALL of the states.

But what you end up with is backwards laws getting passed in backwards places. It almost never happens the way you're describing -- it's almost always just the opposite. The bigger the picture, the more normalizing influence you have to protect minority opinions and views.

So yes, it's important that people in big cities and liberal areas force the backwater places not to pass idiotic laws.

Ron Paul has is wrong.

Re:LOL

[Phoghat]

+1 Underated Where's my mod npoints when I need them

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, please. I'm a straight guy, and I could take a platonic shower together with Olivia Wilde without even getting an erection.

Haha. No, you could not.

Actually, I didn't know who Olivia Wilde was, so I looked her up on wikipedia.. did you know that her birth name was Cockburn? Think about that a little.. "cock" .. "burn" .. now imagine her soapy glistening body in front of you and you just reach around to get the shampoo.. right, erection here we go.

Re:LOL

[tbannist]

His main issue is one that helps compartmentalize the damage that a voting group can do. It is much more agreeable to me that poor laws can be limited to a subset of states than to have poor laws applied to ALL of the states.

I bet those "compartments" will work exactly as well as the ones in the Titanic.

Re:LOL

[tbannist]

Such arrangement is less problematic so long as you have freedom of movement.

It's ok if people run the (Jews|gays|blacks|atheists|Hispanics|Asians|whites) out of the state because some other state will (probably) take the refugees? That sounds like a victory for bigotry and prejudice to me. Also, the people most vulnerable to this type harassment generally don't have the capital to simply move to another state and what state is going to want to accept unemployed refugees?

Re:LOL

[shutdown -p now]

It's ok if people run the (Jews|gays|blacks|atheists|Hispanics|Asians|whites) out of the state because some other state will (probably) take the refugees?

It's not okay, but if the supermajority of people are really so inclined in a given state, the only way you can enforce your freedoms on them is through military occupation (see also: Civil War). Are you willing to make that step?

what state is going to want to accept unemployed refugees?

Any state. U.S. constitution prohibits states from restricting freedom of movement between each other.

Re:LOL

[segin]

... what [the] constitution says (in plain English...)

If only the Constitution was written in plain English. It's rather more English words applied to Latin structure, that is, not plain English. Nice try, though.

Re:LOL

[segin]

What exactly are "godless politicians"? I thought politicians were far too stupid to be Atheists, and, AFAIK, the vast majority of American politicians are Christian - 434 Congresspeople are. And also, what is "Nazi Darwinism", and how exactly does it differ from normal Darwinism?

Re:LOL

[shutdown -p now]

You must have missed the annual battery check on your sarcasm detector. ~

Re:LOL

[kiwimn]

"When it comes to something like marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue at all." Immigration will always be a federal issue. How do you propose international relationships would be handled if marriage was not a federal issue? My K-1 visa was only valid if I married within 90 days of being let into the US. My residency status was also only valid as long as we remained married for the first five years. My sister in law has been in a long term relationship with her girlfriend (an EU citizen) for many years. They live in Europe, but even if they were married in one of the US states that allow it, they still could not immigrate here because the federal government does not recognise their relationship. It is disingenuous to suggest that the Federal system of government is failing because the US is not homogeneous. A more diverse government should produce a moderate consensus/legislation. Why doesn't it in the US? We all know the answers - the influence of money and media, and how the government is structured (the ability to filibuster etc - what the hell is the point of democracy when the other side can just block elected officials from voting?).

Re:LOL

[repapetilto]

You think all public schools are equal under the current system? Do you also think that the quality of public schooling is equal to private schooling or home school?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:LOL

[repapetilto]

So... you are always right?

Re:LOL

[RingDev]

Do you also think that the quality of public schooling is equal to private schooling or home school?

YOU aren't thinking that all public schools are equal under the current system, do you?

Not all public/private/online/home schools are equal. Some public schools are really good, some public schools are really bad. Some private schools are really good, others are complete drivel. Some homeschoolers are really focused, others wind up with mal-adjusted brats that are totally indoctrinated in their parent's beliefs.

Point being, the focus on public schools shouldn't be destroying the good along with the bad, but improving the bad to perform as well as the good.

-Rick

Re:LOL

[scot4875]

In terms of human rights, that answer is pretty much a simple "yes".

--Jeremy

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

My first choice for the Republican nomination was Herman Cain

Ahh, so you're an idiot.

He doesn't believe in evolution himself

And he's ignorant.

Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

You could apply the above definition to two-year old children, you backwards motherfucker.

Which archiaic mythology are you referring to? The philosophy of compassion? Or just valuing human life in general?

Sick.

Re:LOL

[geminidomino]

How are two year olds non-sentient, you bible-beating dickhole?

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about the bible?

If you don't hold an intrinsic value for human life then that's at least a valid and defensible (if IMO deplorable) position and I'm unlikely to convince you to change your mind. Trying to weasel the definition of a human to something that only exists after birth is not a valid position in any way, shape or form, and is just utterly wrong.

Re:LOL

[repapetilto]

Sounds like backwards thinking to me.

Re:LOL

[repapetilto]

Point being, the focus on public schools shouldn't be destroying the good along with the bad, but improving the bad to perform as well as the good.

I agree And you think the answer is what?

Re:LOL

[geminidomino]

Trying to weasel the definition of a human to something that only exists after birth is not a valid position in any way, shape or form, and is just utterly wrong.

Less so than trying to weasel the definition of a human to something with less biological complexity than a toenail clipping.

The "life begins at conception" argument is rooted in the concept of "souls" and similar foolishness, and holds no demonstrable validity.

Similarly, I reject the corporate claims that "smaller profits" equate to "lost money" as if the potential for something is the same as its existence. It's patently false (otherwise, every time I get a blowjob, I'm committing genocide) and is an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic to try to re-frame the issue in nonsensical context.

Re:LOL

[RingDev]

Heh, if I had an answer for that, I'd be working to implement it, not dinking around on /.! :P

You can't just throw money at it, but taking money away from public education sure isn't going to make it better. Where my wife went to school while living in Mississippi the school was so poorly funded they were using books that were decades old (and incorrect!), they didn't have enough for all the students so they had to share, had missing/broken windows, and the whole place was in a substantial state of disrepair.

If folks want to cut public education funding to the bone, fine, but don't be surprised when graduation rates drop to the 40% range.

I am a bit spoiled though, my highschool (in south central Wisconsin) had a 97% graduation rate. And the school my son is going to (about 15 miles away from my old school) has had a 100% graduation rate for the last 3 consecutive years. Sure, my property taxes are astronomical compared to Mississippi, but knowing that my son, and all of the kids in his generation, are growing up with the assumption that graduating highschool and persuing secondary education and a career is the "normal" thing to do is damn well worth it!

-Rick

Re:LOL

[repapetilto]

Sure, my property taxes are astronomical compared to Mississippi, but knowing that my son, and all of the kids in his generation, are growing up with the assumption that graduating highschool and persuing secondary education and a career is the "normal" thing to do is damn well worth it!

I don't think secondary education in and of itself should be seen as a goal.

You get people paying universities to give them communications and art degrees. They graduate tens of thousands of dollars in debt and still don't think critically or have any skill they wouldn't have gotten on the job anyway. This is made much worse by allowing people to put off paying for the schooling. When you are 18 you don't care about paying off some debt 4 years later. You care about having a hopeful future, doing what your friends are doing (the normal thing), partying, etc. Every parent wants what is best for their child so they will encourage this. The universities know exactly what is going on and are taking advantage of it by price gouging. I would even say we are in the middle of a "higher education bubble." Our government is pumping this bubble by taking on so much student loan debt, just like they did the housing bubble.

I understand that people want equal opportunities, and that higher education facilitates social mobility... which is desirable for a country, but the federal government (via college loans, and federal school funding) does not seem to be the answer. The bureaucracy is just too vast and corrupt. What at first seems like a good idea gets perverted by everyone playing CYA and politics, striving to meet politician-defined metrics, and filling out paper work the whole time. Cronyism becomes king.

It sounds like your wife's school was in a failing neighborhood and she moved away wanting a better life for herself and her children. There were likely other problems with that neighborhood besides the lack of school funding. If the feds payed for everything she would have needed to move to a new country when/if that government stops functioning correctly and the infrastructure begins to fall apart.

So I would say decentralization of power and responsibility (relative to now) is a better idea. Also, if it became cool to be smart and do good in school (e.g. gets you laid and paid), I think lots of our problems with the educational system would go away. As it is, it is cooler to cheat your way through, party, and play sports.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with souls or any other spiritual matter. It is simply about valuing life. Either you do or you don't. And it's not "potential" life as you call it - it is life once it has been conceived. I happen to agree with you on rejecting claims that smaller profits equal lost money, but that's a completely different issue.

The blowjob is a poor (and often repeated) argument. Unless the hooker has a mouthful of human eggs then it's a complete strawman. You're not shooting zygotes are you? I think you may be just trying to tie that to the "potential" life issue there so you're probably safe.

Color me surprised...

[Joce640k]

Color me surprised!

Not.

Every congresscritter is in someone's pocket...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the hope that they're in different pockets. You have to compromise your morals as a congresscritter...the good ones make more favorable deals with fewer devils who are less evil.

No shit?

[AngryDeuce]

Which representative isn't in someone's pocket? Good fucking luck finding one...

Re:No shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which representative isn't in most corporations' pocket?
 
By the way, has anyone on here read Lawrence Lessig's new book on this topic of corporate influence on politicians? I don't have much money, and have even less income, so I'd appreciate /. feedback on the book before I consider buying it. (The odds of getting it at a library in less than a year are low.)

Re:No shit?

[mrchaotica]

(The odds of getting it at a library in less than a year are low.)

You can increase those odds by requesting that your library buy it or by pursuing an inter-library loan.

Also, don't his books tend to be available for free [legally] on the Internet to begin with?

Re:No shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read it but one part of it bugs me. He didn't release it under the creative commons. After he discussed how important it was on numerous times and everything about it. Of course, maybe the money in media he complains about all time time is different when it goes into his pocket and he was hoping no one would notice when he didn't talk about it. Information wants to be free, for the right price, I guess.

Re:No shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are political donations not anonymous? If the politicians do not know who gave the money, they can not be bribed.

Re:No shit?

[newcastlejon]

Why are political donations not anonymous? If the politicians do not know who gave the money, they can not be bribed.

Politician: Hi there, how are you today?
Lobbyist: Oh, I'm fine thanks. By the way, you know that anonymous $50,000 contribution your campaign received last week?
Politician: Yes, what of it?
Lobbyist: If you want another one next month, please vote for $bill.

Re:No shit?

[berbo]

Here in Wisconsin we used to be represented by Senator Feingold, one of the poorest senators. He came pretty close. But he was defeated by a TP dude.

Re:No shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

See my comment here: http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2580182&cid=38418350 because his book isn't available anywhere that I can find, legally that is.

Re:No shit?

[ShakaUVM]

>>Which representative isn't in someone's pocket? Good fucking luck finding one...

All the representatives I clicked on during a random walk through opensecrets.org got numerous chunks of money from corporations at the maximum donation limit.

All the backers of SOPA that I looked at, in addition, got large chunks from the film and music industries.

Which just sort of reinforces my belief that only persons that can vote in the US should be able to donate money to campaigns in the US.

This means no donations from corporations, in other words. At all. Period. End of story. They are still free to hire lobbyists - just not the cash bribes that make idiots like Rep Watt sit up and beg for them.

Re:No shit?

[coolmadsi]

Why are political donations not anonymous? If the politicians do not know who gave the money, they can not be bribed.

Politician: Hi there, how are you today?
Lobbyist: Oh, I'm fine thanks. By the way, you know that anonymous $50,000 contribution your campaign received last week?
Politician: Yes, what of it?
Lobbyist: If you want another one next month, please vote for $bill.

Lobbyist 2 (later): Oh hi, you know that anonymous $50,000 contribution your campaign received last week?
Politician: Yeah, from Lobbyist1...
Lobbyist 2: Nah, he goes around implying he donated, but actualy doesn't. If you appreciate donations such as that, I would like to talk to you about $bill2...

Congress is really voting on itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress not voting on whether the web's most visited sites will remain up. Congress is really voting on whether it remains relevant.

Make an accepted behavior criminal and all you do is delegitimize the law in general, as Prohibition showed.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is "user generated" why would anyone take it down? That implies the user created the content from scratch with using copyrighted (copywritten?) music or video/photo data.

Re:What?

[AngryDeuce]

If it is "user generated" why would anyone take it down?

Ask Universal Media Group, since they did just that less than a week ago.

Re:What?

[ninetyninebottles]

copyrighted (copywritten?)

Copyrighted. As in, the government granted monopoly on the right to make copies of a work; ostensibly for the promotion of useful arts and sciences.

Re:What?

[king neckbeard]

A more accurate description may be 'user posted.' Some is from scratch, some is using derivative works in a clearly legal or authorized way, some is in a gray area, and some is clearly illegal. Takedown requests are pretty common for all but the first, and the recent UMG/Megaupload debacle has reminded us that even that can be subject to takedown by particularly aggressive groups.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what I would call "cherry picking" your argument as how often does that happen? It was done more out of spite for Megaupload than copyright violation, as Google said they (UMG) gamed the system.
How often could they do that with someones original work? Not at all actually, which goes to show you how little people understand the issue.

I think it's absolutely stunning in the worst way that you got modded up as insightful when you're really the opposite of "insightful" based on the original question.

"If it is "user generated" why would anyone take it down? That implies the user created the content from scratch with using copyrighted (copywritten?) music or video/photo data."

All those sites would continue just fine as the majority of content is not copyrighted nor derivative.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking Fair Use, how does it work?

Re:What?

[koan]

Or "rights" vs "writes"

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what I would call "cherry picking" your argument as how often does that happen? It was done more out of spite for Megaupload than copyright violation, as Google said they (UMG) gamed the system. How often could they do that with someones original work? Not at all actually, which goes to show you how little people understand the issue.

I think it's absolutely stunning in the worst way that you got modded up as insightful when you're really the opposite of "insightful" based on the original question.

"If it is "user generated" why would anyone take it down? That implies the user created the content from scratch with using copyrighted (copywritten?) music or video/photo data."

All those sites would continue just fine as the majority of content is not copyrighted nor derivative.

Existing copyright laws and particularly the DMCA are abused constantly to censor and silence people constantly.
I think it is -you- that have little understanding of the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Criticisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Clambake#DMCA_and_Google_delisting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#DMCA

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again read the original post:

""If it is "user generated" why would anyone take it down? That implies the user created the content from scratch with using copyrighted (copywritten?) music or video/photo data.""

None of those links your pasted cover "user created non-derivative/copyrighted works" and since these "works" are not using anything copyrighted or derivative then there is no violation occurring, what they do mention is actual works that have been used against their copyrights or 1/3 of 57% of request due to section 92a of New Zealand ISP's which amounts to what? A fucking problem for New Zealanders and so negligible in effect as to be laughable.
You can't even function intellectually at a level sufficient to understand what is happening, you can only paste items that have no relevance to the very post you quoted, or to make it simple you are like a small child mimicking things you overheard without knowing their true meaning or intention.

arent we forgeting something?

[zubiaur]

"could result in the extinction of sites that are based on user-generated content like YouTube, Reddit, and StumbleUpon."

What about /.?

Re:arent we forgeting something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the possible extinction of Reddit, YouTube, and StumbleUpon seem like pretty compelling reasons to support SOPA.

Re:arent we forgeting something?

[SuricouRaven]

It won't, though. Laws like SOPA are only ever used against those who can't afford to defend themselves, and won't result in a public outcry if they go. If SOPA had been around back when Youtube was just a young and obscure company, it might have been shut down before it ever became well-known - but now it is established, it's staying.

Broke

[Wowsers]

Speaking as a non American, this is how the USA looks today to non Americans. The USA economy is broke, bust, only surviving by the willingness of countries like China to prop you up. Like many Western countries, you sent your manufacturing economy abroad, believing in the fairy story of "Intellectual Property" as the new way of making money.

Intellectual Property is worthless, especially to the many countries that don't care about it. It's not as if the USA cares about fair trade, using geopolitical muscle to frighten smaller states into submission.

If you keep on electing the same morons who push controls on the internet for big corporate friend donors, then the only person you can blame is yourself.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not quite. US manufacturing has recently been on the decline, yes, but we're still top in the world for now. It's more that Chinese output has skyrocketed in recent years. (data)
 
With recent increases in Chinese labor costs, the balance is also slowly starting to shift back in our favor. But it remains to be seen what will happen in coming years.

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

If you keep on electing the same morons who push controls on the internet for big corporate friend donors, then the only person you can blame is yourself.

If you lived here you would see the sheer numbers of completely ignorant people there are in this country that don't give a fuck about anything beyond what is happening on Keeping Up With the Kardashians

Far too many of our populace has become completely complacent. Throw some McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and NASCAR at them and nothing else in the whole goddamned world matters, so long as we're "fighting the terrorists".

Things will change, it is inevitable as this level of ignorance is unsustainable; unfortunately, this country is going to have to suffer a total economic collapse before people start opening their eyes. I wish it were not so, but there's been a real anti-intellectual bent in this country over the last 30 years or so, so there are just too many people that can't see beyond tomorrow or their own backyards. Hell, any attempt to upset the status quo is widely dismissed and mocked, go to CNN and read the comments on any article about an Occupy protest here in the states and you'll see for yourself what we're fighting against.

So you tell me, Non-American: what do we do? Start locking up stupid people? Require IQ tests to vote? How do we nullify the moron voter base? They don't want to hear reason, because they're trained by Talk Radio ideologues to distrust anyone that disagrees with them. So what's your solution? Because honestly, we could use one, and I would really like to find one that doesn't involve Hitler-esque eugenics programs...

Re:Broke

[kamapuaa]

Ha ha, English, right? English people all seem to thing America needs subsidized manufacturing. It's totally bizarre.

9 of the 10 best universities in the world are American. 4 of the world's 10 largest corporations are American. America has less debt per capita than Western European nations.

How many people in England use an iPhone, drive an American car, are currently typing this program on Windows or a Mac? Just about everybody. How many English products do I own? Let me look around...(30 seconds later)...I have a handle of Beefeater Gin. And that's it.

And why would intellectual property be worthless? Because it wants to be? People will pay for it so it has worth. It's just as worthwhile as paper money or gold.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, I really do, but I think anyone in the world would be hard pressed to find a politician (or normal person) who wouldn't do these kinds of things with the amount of money changing hands. Ideology doesn't make your next boat payment.

As far as IP, I agree with you. I think the entertainment industry overestimates their value to the world. Out of all the movies I've seen in the last ten years, I'm hard pressed to think of more than two I enjoyed enough to pay to see them in the theater. I'd rather spend my money on food and drink. I get way more enjoyment out of a dinner and a few beers. A dollar for a song that can be copied infinitely? No, I'm sorry. No.

Re:Broke

[artor3]

You're misinformed. China owns a whopping 8% of the US debt. The country is nowhere near broke. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts and putting some common sense reforms in place in Medicare and Social Security (e.g. means testing, increase the payroll tax cap, allow young healthy people to buy into Medicare) are all we need to get back in the black.

Our problem is a political one, not an economic one. The Republicans have abandoned any notion of loyal opposition, and now view politics as a war in which one's opponent must be destroyed utterly, no matter the cost. So solutions that are entirely reasonable, such as Obama's proposed plan to reduce the deficit by $2 trillion, get torpedoed, simply because a Democrat proposed them. Instead we get plans like the super committee, which was supposed to cut $600B from each of domestic spending and the military. But even that's too much compromise for the Republicans, so now they're trying to weasel out of the very same deal that they insisted on a few months ago.

As long as voters continue to view politics as a team sport, we're screwed.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Nullifying the moron voter base won't help if we still have moron candidates, where are all the intelligent, honest candidates? In industry?

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in non-america too (technically it depends on whether we talk about the country or continent) and we face the same problem. For us in Argentina, it required pretty much full economic collapse for people to start thinking and it's still an ongoing battle. I suppose Jefferson was right, you really need a revolution of some sort every 20 something years, for democracy to work as intended and to keep people interested in real world problems.

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

In other countries, it seems. Maybe we can import some? May as well offshore our political candidates along with everything else, amirite?

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

How many English products do I own?

How many American products do you own, and by that I mean made in the United States by residents of the United States?

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think they are so stupid? By that I mean what caused this downward shift? Or are you of the opinion that in general people find it easier to be given their thoughts rather than cogitate themselves.

If you answered yes to the last then might I suggest that television is the issue and has destroyed at least 2 generations of potentially thoughtful people, to get an idea of what I mean by this look at the "inappropriate curve", try to imagine a show like "two and half men" in the 50's or "Califonication" in which the 5th season episode 1 was a string of sex scenes for roughly 20 minutes.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, another idea is to simply kill all stupid people? That would solve the problem. Identify the stupid gene, and kill everyone with the stupid gene. But that would be kinda a nazi move, with other consequences, but, on the other hand maybe it would be beneficial to humanity over the long term.

Re:Broke

[Bob9113]

Like many Western countries, you sent your manufacturing economy abroad, believing in the fairy story of "Intellectual Property" as the new way of making money.

While there is a lot of merit in what you say, the notion that IP has become most of our economy is not true. If you take the broadest definition of media -- including not just CDs and movie tickets, but things like Internet advertising and billboards -- total US media revenue is something like $450 billion per year. That is about 3.1% of the economy. Add in patent licensing and the monopoly rent portion of revenue on patented products -- using a similarly broad definition -- you're still well under 10% of GDP.

The idea that IP is the last thing we are capable of is false. It may be a larger portion of our economy than of many nations, but it is still a small enough portion of the economy that it could disappear tomorrow and it would not be as bad as the 2008 crash.

That also means that we don't need to set the Internet on fire and start throwing people who download The Little Mermaid in jail. If 10% of the people are assholes who don't pay for the media they consume and we just ignore them and go on with our lives, we'll be fine.

Re:Broke

[artor3]

Look at Obama. He's honest, smart, and completely helpless. He wasted most of his first two years trying to negotiate with people who had no intention of ever working with him. All the while, his opponents spread vicious lies about "death panels". They accused him of trying to indoctrinate school children when he told them to stay in school. They demonized his wife for suggesting kids shouldn't eat fast food every day. They complained about him raising taxes ("Taxed Enough Already!") when he had actually cut taxes, as part of the stimulus. They lied and lied and lied and the drooling masses lapped it up, with the result that the liars gained power.

Stupidity and hatred will beat reason and cooperation every time. The GP is optimistic. A total economic collapse will not get the idiots to open their eyes. They'll blame the collapse on whomever Limbaugh tells them to blame. Spoiler alert: they're going to blame liberals, and immigrants, and Muslims, and gays. And the idiot masses will start killing.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Move out.

If there's no way to fix it, it's irreparably broken.

Move to Europe. Move to Canada. Move to Japan. Plenty of options.

Re:Broke

[mrchaotica]

The intelligent, honest candidates can't get any campaign funding.

Re:Broke

[Finallyjoined!!!]

6 out of the 10 top Universities are American, the other 4 are English..Note that at No. 1 is Cambridge: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011

Less than 1% here in England drive an American car because, in the main, they're just too shite for words.

I have an iPhone, but it's made in China, as is my PC. My gogglebox comes from Korea, my motah from Germany, my desk from Sweden & my rug from Iran. Oh, I've just taken stock & the only American object I own is a bloody Weber barbeque.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seem to understand that the only people that run for office are morons.

Re:Broke

[mrchaotica]

Actually, now that I think about it they can't get on the ballot to begin with either. Ballot access requires being nominated by one of the existing parties, and to get nominated you have to be as sociopathic and corrupt as the rest of them.

Re:Broke

[cats-paw]

what's amazing is that those people not paying attention are the ones who are being hurt most by the our "representatives".
it's not that they can be bought, it's that they can be bought so cheaply...

Re:Broke

[jjjhs]

Because moving to another country is as easy as you say it is?

Re:Broke

[Kohath]

How about supporting smaller, weaker, less expensive, less powerful government? Then when someone wants to (mis)use government power ... there won't be much government power. A powerless government is a harmless government. And a weak government can only do limited harm.

Can we do that? Or do you need a huge, powerful, active government to enact your schemes upon your neighbors?

Like ESR (whom I quoted below), I wonder if anyone here will ever learn.

Re:Broke

[RazorSharp]

I'm an American, but here's my answer to your question: Educate. That's our only hope, to educate our way out of this, and that's where the Democrats should narrow their focus. An uneducated person doesn't understand Rawlsian economics. An uneducated person doesn't understand that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and needs to be replaced. Or that socialism isn't a dirty word.

What the neo-cons have done is make a religion out of Americanism. They paint their opponents as unpatriotic blasphemers and the general public buys it. They buy it because they're uneducated, which makes them suckers.

Educate children. Extend the schoolday to 9-10 hours long (most people work at least 8 hours a day, so a 6-7 hour school day necessitates child care of some sort), allow more time for physical activity, self-study, and hands-on learning. Keep these kids away from their idiot parents as long as possible and teach them about the world. Ensure that they're well versed in logic, mathematics, science, and multiple languages. That they are in good physical condition.

There's this bizarre attitude in this country that a parent knows best. That by becoming a parent, some slumbering genius is awakened in each and every one of us and these instincts will guide our children to happiness. Mothers especially love this bullshit - the "maternal instinct" they speak of so reverently. Of course, they fail to mention that infanticide brought on by postpartum depression is nothing more than "maternal instinct."

I would rather see a Brave New World than my country devolve into ancient Rome, a land of bread and circuses, which is the way things appear to be headed. Take these kids away from their parents and fill their heads with every bit of objectively verifiable knowledge we can. That way, when they get older and start making subjective assessments, they'll at least be rooted in logic, which is clearly not the case right now.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

ARM (Cambridge based) make the cpu for the iPhone (and iPod) and many other smart phones (over 6.1 billion ARM-based chips were sold in 2010).

So for every iPhone there's an integral part of it that's British. They also license their IP to many other companies including Intel, Nintendo and IBM. You're talking about brands not the thousands of individual components that go into making electronic devices, cars, military equipment etc - they come from all over the world.

Re:Broke

[SuricouRaven]

I also find it interesting that Obama followed a president who deliberatly tried to appear less intelligent than he really was, and his rival in the election had to pick an obvious-moron vice president in order to be sure of capturing the Stupid Vote. It appears that in US politics, appearing intelligent is bad for one's career.

Re:Broke

[cheekyjohnson]

Spoiler alert: they're going to blame liberals, and immigrants, and Muslims, and gays.

And conservatives, libertarians, and probably every other group in existence (because stupidity is likely everywhere and a part of every group).

Re:Broke

[SuricouRaven]

The iPhone is made in China, no-one here drives an American car because we have higher fuel prices and smaller roads.

Re:Broke

[Kohath]

They lied and lied and lied and the drooling masses lapped it up, with the result that the liars gained power.

Congrats on helping to create the biggest, most powerful government ever for them to wield. Bravo.

If we had a small, weak, mostly insignificant government, it wouldn't matter much who was in charge of it. But then you wouldn't be able to wield it against your many, many, hated enemies either.

Re:Broke

[sgtstein]

My goodness I wish I could mod you up right now! I have had mod points the last few days and they would have finally been useful!

Re:Broke

[tunapez]

Can't agree enough with the latter two, but honest? He's a politician! Keep that sentiment in mind when he pardons Blagovovich.
 
  If you think there is a difference between a Dem and a Rep, besides the speeches they read(Not write, mind you), then you're still listening to the reward centers of your brain. The nature of the species is to game a system(any system) for maximum benefit of the group(exclusive). Call it a party, a tribe, the 1% or the home team. It's all about more, more, more for 'us'. Consider now the theater of politics where the (s)elected principals all have their roles to play to obfuscate the crimes against humanity in the name of revenues, margin growth and resource plundering. They say they are stewards, but all actions and results point toward pandering to their money suppliers.

Don't feel left out Euros, your time is nigh. Italy is now governed by unelected financiers. That's a big step for global financial extortion. Viva Goldman!

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

Let's be honest here: which 1st world country even wants U.S. citizens moving there? All of the people I know that routinely travel to Europe and Asia on vacation tell people they're Canadian now, because when they were honest and told them they were from the U.S. they were treated like absolute shit, made fun of, kicked out of pubs and restaurants, and generally just fucked with; not all the time, but often enough that it made them feel totally unwelcome even as tourists. Even people that they were engaged in pleasant conversation with would sometimes simply walk away once they found out they were from the states. Now that they tell them they're Canadian none of that happens anymore.

The "ignorant, brutish American" stereotype has spread across the entire globe, and I can't necessarily even argue against it; the only things many people around the world know about us are totally negative. For every thoughtful, reasonable American citizen there are 10 mouth-breathing retards comparing Islam to Nazism, cheering the deaths of the uninsured and booing one of our own soldiers because he is gay.

Re:Broke

[fatalGlory]

I think parent's question may be somewhat rhetorical, but I think it could be an interesting discussion, so here's one non-American's idea (having said that, we face a similar issue in Australia, we voted in Rudd to spend our surplus without providing any *new* services. But I can't think of a truly unbiased way to measure who's voting population is "dumber" on average).

This problem took significant time to develop, and it will take time to resolve. I feel that neglecting the subject of formal logic in modern education is near the root of the problem. I am strongly reminded of Professor Diggory's furrowed-brow wondering "what do they teach them in these schools?" What then can we do? I would love to see a twofold solution.

1. Training in formal logic in schools. Teach children (maybe as part of the mathematics curriculum, since I suppose this is applied mathematics) to recognize and reject common logical fallacies like false equivocation, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent and the non-sequitur.
2. Reference to these principles in political debate(s). If a politician gives a speech or presentation where they use flagrantly poor logic, their opponent could (should) point these out and force the presenter to attempt to persuade the public of their position on more rational grounds.

Would this fix every problem even if executed perfectly? No. Evidence could still be fabricated to support false premises, while maintaining logical validity. But it would be better than the current situation where flawed logic and emotive non-answers are consistently employed to sway an uncritical public. Is this a pipe dream that will never happen? Maybe. But if we have a goal we can at least work towards it.

Thoughts slashdot?

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

It appears that in US politics, appearing intelligent is bad for one's career.

Well, of course! After all, getting educated is a sign of liberal indoctrination!

Re:Broke

[fatalGlory]

I think parent's question may be somewhat rhetorical, but I think it could be an interesting discussion, so here's one non-American's idea (having said that, we face a similar issue in Australia, we voted in Rudd to spend our surplus without providing any *new* services. But I can't think of a truly unbiased way to measure who's voting population is "dumber" on average).

This problem took significant time to develop, and it will take time to resolve. I feel that neglecting the subject of formal logic in modern education is near the root of the problem. I am strongly reminded of Professor Diggory's furrowed-brow wondering "what do they teach them in these schools?" What then can we do? I would love to see a twofold solution.

1. Training in formal logic in schools. Teach children (maybe as part of the mathematics curriculum, since I suppose this is applied mathematics) to recognize and reject common logical fallacies like false equivocation, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent and the non-sequitur.
2. Reference to these principles in political debate(s). If a politician gives a speech or presentation where they use flagrantly poor logic, their opponent could (should) point these out and force the presenter to attempt to persuade the public of their position on more rational grounds.

Would this fix every problem even if executed perfectly? No. Evidence could still be fabricated to support false premises, while maintaining logical validity. But it would be better than the current situation where flawed logic and emotive non-answers are consistently employed to sway an uncritical public. Is this a pipe dream that will never happen? Maybe. But if we have a goal we can at least work towards it.

Thoughts slashdot?

Re:Broke

[Mitreya]

Look at Obama. He's honest, smart, and completely helpless. He wasted most of his first two years trying to negotiate with people who had no intention of ever working with him.

You are part of the brain-washed masses, my friend. While I will concede your second point, he does appear to negotiate with non-compromising Republicans who will not budge regardless of what is offered. Oh, and I will concede the "smart" part.
However, for every issue he cares about there is another issue where he is happy with the outcome, yet pretends to be helpless opposition. (i.e. not putting any, even minimal, effort into opposing it, while officially disagreeing). And for each such issue there is at least one more where he is gladly working with Republicans in a complete turn-around from most un-equivocal promises he had made during election campaign. The latest budget bill is an excellent example, where his only opposition/veto threat came from protecting his (Executive) prerogative to quietly send away "accused terrorists", rather than from defending people's constitutional rights. Please educate yourself on the "smart, honest and helpless" president - you can start by reading Glenn Greenwald at Salon.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the ever living fuck would own a American car? Fuck that shit, they are worthless turds

Re:Broke

[Vaphell]

you didn't think it over, did you?
you think that the US is a disaster, that there is a gap between the ruling elite and the masses... so tell me this - who would be responsible for implementing that plan? Wouldn't that be the same bureaucrats that are a part of the problem? Who says they wouldn't take advantage of the situation and brainwash the kids with massive propaganda to support the status quo? And to be clear, Reps are bad, but Dems are not angels either.

When your problem is too much power in the hands of corrupted elites, you don't solve it by giving them even more power.

Re:Broke

[dead_cthulhu]

How about a good government regardless of size?

Re:Broke

[Type44Q]

Look at Obama. He's honest...

This is a career politician we're talking about here, isn't it? (Just checking.)

smart...

Undoubtedly.

He wasted most of his first two years trying to negotiate with people who had no intention of ever working with him.

Actually, he succeeded completely - in part by making anyone think that he wasted those two years. If only!

Re:Broke

[Vaphell]

cutting deficit by $2T over 10 years is what, 200B/year? Great, instead of $1.5T/year deficits you get 1.3T/year.
Besides it was more in $1.2T-$1.5T range so the change would be even smaller. In reality it was not about shrinking the budget and the debt, but decreasing the projected rate of growth of the budget - putting lipstick on a pig comes to mind.

Re:Broke

[dissy]

If you keep on electing the same morons who push controls on the internet for big corporate friend donors, then the only person you can blame is yourself.

Choice A - Man on right - Will sell out our rights to corporations.

Choice B - Man on left - Will sell out our rights to corporations.

Choice C - Man you can't see - Statistically has no chance of winning - However he too will sell out our rights to corporations.

Now, you choose A B or C, and reply.
Then explain how the government selling out our rights to corporations is now personally your fault as you claim.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, "good government", excellent.

Ok, thanks! We needed some levity in this thread.

You're lightning wit is a service to your fellow slashdotters.

Re:Broke

[Kohath]

So you're suggesting we elect politicians who are pure, never make mistakes, and are impossible to corrupt? Please explain how this will occur.

Even if you could find perfect leaders, a powerful government can't be "good". Wielding power against people is, at best, a necessary evil. And governments can't become big and powerful without stealing power and resources from individuals. Stealing isn't "good".

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

No one likes tourist in general regardless of where they come from and maybe you should spend less time at "go.com" since it's affected your view of people.
Also if someone takes issue with an American tourist simply because they are American it implies they are even more bigoted and ignorant than "go.com" has led you to believe we (Americans) are.

My brother routinely travels the World (China, India, Europe, Australia) and has stated many times how well he is treated and that the people he comes into contact with generally like Americans.

Everyone here believes "hear say" too much or reads one article some where and actually believes it is representative of more than the posters general ignorance.

Re:Broke

[c0lo]

I'm an American, but here's my answer to your question: Educate.

You are past the point on which you can still educate. The school system and everything else around (contributing to informal education) is fine tuned to conditioning, not education.

Think: what is the aim of the school? I'd argue: not building an education, but passing some exams.

Educate children. Extend the schoolday to 9-10 hours long (most people work at least 8 hours a day, so a 6-7 hour school day necessitates child care of some sort), allow more time for physical activity, self-study, and hands-on learning.

Sorry, the means you a proposing for "education" are even worse: it is 9-10 hours of brain-washing. One would need to see a revolution in education.

Re:Broke

[artor3]

I was a Republican until 2008. Voted for Bush twice. I greatly regret it, and take some solace in the fact that my vote wouldn't have changed the outcome. I went into the 2008 election planning to vote for McCain, and only changed my mind after he brought in Palin and sold his soul to the same Rovian politics used against him 8 years earier (did you know McCain fathered an illegitimate black baby?).

I am in no way "listening to the reward centers of my brain". Anyone who puts aside their preconceptions and takes a critical view of American politics of the past few years will see that the Democrats are ineffective, but mostly well intentioned. Sometimes their good intentions have harmful effects, but the point is they're trying to help. The same cannot be said of the Republicans.

The Republicans are trying to destroy the United States government. They openly admit it, saying their plan is to "starve the beast". They want a country with no central government, because that will allow absolute rule by the 1%. They (the 1%) have all the power, in the form of near limitless wealth. Our only tools against them are being slowly taken away. Unions are dying, public programs are being underfunded or privatized, our ability to sue has been replaced by "arbiters" who find for the corporation 97% of the time, and the government itself is being strangled to death. It's class warfare, declared by the rich, and the rich are winning. They will leave this country an empty husk, and retire to some nice Carribbean isles, while we're left behind -- destitute, and looking for someone to blame.

Re:Broke

[artor3]

No, it was $2T. There was $50B/yr in spending cuts and $150B/yr in new revenue. Plus, we'll get another $100B/yr with the end of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And we'll get another $300B/yr if we ever let the Bush tax cuts expire. And an estimated $300B/yr once the economy picks up steam. So under that plan, by 2020, we could have the deficit down to $600B/yr, less than half what it currently is.

Not perfect, but a good start, and much better than any alternative proposed thus far.

Re:Broke

[mirix]

I think you'll need to fight the whole anti-intellectual thing in the first place. Parents wont pay extra taxes for extra/better education, kids think learning is for dweebs.

I see things getting a lot worse before they get better. How do you fight complacency?

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Obama. He's honest...

This is a career politician we're talking about here, isn't it? (Just checking.)

No. At this point, that he's been a serving politician for 7 years.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

So you tell me, Non-American: what do we do?

Hand out free beer at polling booths?

Re:Broke

[sydbarrett74]

I would rather see a Brave New World than my country devolve into ancient Rome

What Huxley depicted in Brave New World was a post-modern version of pre-fall Rome. The people in BNW were fed a stupefying drug known as soma and 'encouraged' to have promiscuous sex and engage in mindless amusement. Isn't that a form of bread and circuses?

Re:Broke

[cochito]

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be," -- TJ.

Re:Broke

[stms]

I agree it's all just the evil republicans thinking of politics as a team sport. GO DEMS!!!

Re:Broke

[hitmark]

Not sure the educate educate educate cheer helps anymore, when getting any serious education basically sends you into a economic black hole of student loans.

Re:Broke

[HopefulIntern]

drive an American car

Oh you! No, American cars are about as common as Russian ones. The only American car here that isn't a bag of dicks is Ford (and lo, they are made in Germany, funny that!) Sorry to burst your bubble, but the old American "no replacement for displacement" does not fit the world economy what with today's fuel prices. We also like our cars to last longer than 3 years.

Re:Broke

[sgt scrub]

believing in the fairy story of "Intellectual Property" as the new way of making money

That is totally false. It was a fairy story of "Investing in the stock market for those who can." and another fairy story of "Goods being so cheap those who can't invest won't notice... until it is too late. "

Re:Broke

[sgt scrub]

Ding! Political funding comes from those with cash. Ding! Political funding from those with cash... wait for it... Ding! is to protect those with cash.

mrchaotica gets the 3 ding award for condensing three truths into one sentence. Congrads!

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

Which leads us right back to the same Catch-22: In general, those people that are educated enough to see through the lies and the bullshit games are forced into submission by tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, in student loan debt. By the time they are secure financially and have that monkey off their back, a decade or more later, they have far too much to risk in bucking the system or standing on principle, and nothing ever changes.

You don't see this in countries with socialized secondary education, which is why youth are so much more politically active in those places. Consider the success the Pirate Party has been having in Northern Europe. People are able to stand on their principles there in a way that they will never allow here, not without a fight. Here you have to sell out or resign yourself to a life of destitution, at least, that's the way it is now in this country.

Re:Broke

[osgeek]

An uneducated person doesn't understand that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and needs to be replaced.

If by "replaced", you mean "followed much more closely than in recent decades because we've gone completely away from it for quite some time", then we agree completely.

Or that socialism isn't a dirty word

Socialism has only a couple of ends. North Korea is at one end of the spectrum. Greece/Italy/Europe is at the other. Which are you more in favor of, gradual ratcheting down the rights and benefits of everyone in the society as mediocrity becomes the norm? Or over-promise and overspend until your debt becomes completely unmanageable?

How about we go back to the raw rights and liberties of the Constitution so that the USA can return to being a beacon of hope and freedom for the world, rather than just another big failed experiment in socialism like Europe?

Re:Broke

[osgeek]

Look at Obama. He's honest, smart, and completely helpless.

How can anyone think that the guys is particularly smart or honest after the last few years? He has more verbal flubs than Dan Quayle (they don't get the air play that Quayle got, but ah well), and he demagogues every issue with class warfare rhetoric that's so horribly dishonest.

Helpless? If only he were a bit more helpless. The guy has been a one man wrecking ball on the economy.

The worst thing about the guy is that he's fundamentally misguided on economics and what's good for a society with his Marxist class-warfare, blame the producers, anti-freedom, anti-American, self-entitled abject stupidity.

Re:Broke

[osgeek]

You're confused is what you are. Establishment Republicans can be easily as bad as Democrats. You voted for Bush even once? And now you're lecturing to us about how Obama is "smart and honest"? Jeez, dude. Maybe you should sit politics out until you learn to think for yourself.

Maybe you should back up and try to find core principles worth supporting and concentrate on how to find support for those principles in politicians.

Step One: The "1%" rhetoric is jealous bullshit, especially in the context of the people spouting it. Stop using it.
Step Two: Learn about liberty. Learn about freedom and how it's being taken from you -- not by run-of-the-mill corporations and rich people, but by crony capitalism... by your government that you're trying to empower to solve all of your problems.

Go read Eric Raymond's post. He's exactly right.

Please stop voting. You helped to give George W. It sounds like you helped to give us Obama. Nice work.

Re:Broke

[hitmark]

Yep. I recall reading a article a while back that claimed the national health service in Norway provided a safety net for startups. One example was a guy that found the processes his workplace used to be inefficient, quit and started up his own business providing the same service in direct competition. He could do this because he did not have to consider the cost of a health insurance, or the risks involved of not having one while getting his business up and running.

Btw, i think the push for home ownership in USA is a direct attempt at stifling uprisings. This in the belief that a home owner is less likely to rock the local boat.

Re:Broke

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I call bs on this. As an American who can actually speak more than 1 language (I speak 3 besides English to varying degrees of proficiency) and who has traveled Europe and Asia in the past decade, this is just simply not true. I have found that if you behave respectfully towards the culture of wherever you travel that people are often thrilled to meet Americans. Now lots of Americans just simply do not know how to behave when they travel. They bitch about everything - "You eat THAT ? ", " I can't believe how many people are here", "Do you take American dollars (or even worse, traveler's checks)?" and so on. I've never had any issues when traveling and many people when finding out that I'm an American have wanted to ask me various questions about life here. Then again, I don't act like a jerk, start arguments in bars, etc.

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing about the guy is that he's fundamentally misguided on economics and what's good for a society with his Marxist class-warfare, blame the producers, anti-freedom, anti-American, self-entitled abject stupidity.
Stephen Colbert, is that you?

Re:Broke

[Anonymous Coward]

You nailed it here. Having a stupid populace keeps the powerful in control, they certainly don't want to see it change.

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

Btw, i think the push for home ownership in USA is a direct attempt at stifling uprisings. This in the belief that a home owner is less likely to rock the local boat.

Of course! Debt has always been a method of exacting control over a person. A person in debt can't as easily give his boss the finger and storm out, a person in debt can't as easily devote the time and resources to fighting their government, and a person in debt can't as easily depend on himself financially and thus must rely on insurance companies to "guard them" from economic uncertainty.

Re:Broke

[chrismcb]

All of the people I know that routinely travel to Europe and Asia on vacation tell people they're Canadian now,

I am an American, and proud of it. A lot of things that America has been doing lately has me disgusted. But not so disgusted that I pretend I'm from somewhere else. I have to say, claiming you are from Canada when you are actually American is one of the disgusting things American tourists do overseas.

I routinely travel the globe. Just got back from South America, will be in Europe for NYE.

If you don't like it here, then move away. But don't lie and say you are from somewhere else.

Dead on arival in the Senate....

[LostCluster]

The House of Reps may very well pass this bill since it's currently Republican controlled, but it stands very little chance of making it through the Senate or getting signed by the President. Internet-aware politicians like use the 'net wisely like the way Obama ran up large numbers of small donations just by asking for them on Twitter.

Re:Dead on arival in the Senate....

[Anonymous Coward]

except the dems are even more in the pocket of hollywood than the reps are...

Re:Dead on arival in the Senate....

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the Senate is debating PIPA while the House debates SOPA. Divide and conquer. Sympathy for big corporations is what is being established here. There are big bad evil pirates ruining a business model that needs stronger protection, according to industry lobbyists.

Re:Dead on arival in the Senate....

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The entertainment industry donates to the Democrats at least as much as they donate to Republicans. Joe Biden did their bidding for years in the Senate, and he wasn't the only one.

Re:Dead on arival in the Senate....

[Solandri]

The House of Reps may very well pass this bill since it's currently Republican controlled, but it stands very little chance of making it through the Senate or getting signed by the President.

This is one of the problems in politics today - people automatically attributing everything bad to the party they oppose. Erroneously convinced that they bear no fault for the ills of the country, they continue voting the exact same corrupt politicians into office year after year. (In this case Democrat voters are in the wrong, but the exact same thing happens with Republican voters.)

The entertainment industry favors Democrats by a 2:1 to 4:1 margin. 7 of their top 10 recipients and 13 of their top 20 recipients are Democrats. Obama is their biggest recipient, receiving 4x more money from them than the next highest recipient (also a Democrat), and nearly 10x more than the highest Republican recipient. Barring a miraculous attack of conscience, he is sure to sign this into law if it passes.

The only thing that's stopping SOPA from passing in the Senate is that it's a House bill. The Senate equivalent is Protect IP.

Re:Dead on arival in the Senate....

[drb226]

The House of Reps may very well pass this bill since it's currently Republican controlled

You do realize that 16 of the 32 (current) sponsors are Democrats? Source

In other news

[CruelKnave]

. . . dog bites man.

relocate

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be a perfect opportunity for a place like Ireland to lure businesses with promises of freedom of speech. Their economy could use it, for sure.

Ron Paul isn't running against Lamar Smith

[Weezul]

As observed here, we could realistically defeat Lamar Smith in 2012 because his district picks up much of Austin, including the University of Texas. Fill his local media with talk about Lamar Smith's attempt to destroy the internet.

Re:Ron Paul isn't running against Lamar Smith

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really because the part of Austin that is covered by Texas 21st are the rich and really rich parts of Austin....

Re:Ron Paul isn't running against Lamar Smith

[westlake]

As observed here, we could realistically defeat Lamar Smith in 2012 because his district picks up much of Austin, including the University of Texas.

[Lamar Smith's] district includes most of the wealthier sections of San Antonio and Austin, as well as nearly all of the Texas Hill Country. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Lamar S. Smith

Smith has been in Congress for 24 years and is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

He holds a very strong hand.

The collegiate vote is significant only if students think of Austin as their home district and the students vote en bloc --- assumming they vote at all.

Re:Ron Paul isn't running against Lamar Smith

[Anonymous Coward]

Defeating Republicans in Texas in 2012 depends on how the districts end up getting redrawn. IIRC, Austin is going to be carved up and extended well into the rural areas to make the districts more right-leaning. Ahhh, the real consequences of elections...

Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

The entertainment industry is allowed to lobby for their causes just like every other industry. It's fair, it's legal and it has worked pretty damn well for over 200 years in this country. I frankly don't see how any of this will lead to shutting down user-generated-content based sites like YouTube. YouTube's parent (Google) has plenty of money and is just as capable of lobbying Congress as is anyone else.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Anonymous Coward]

This needs to stop NOW! seriously, this is corruption.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

Lobbying is not now, nor has it ever been, corruption. It is simply a form of communication.. i.e. speech. We have an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects that sort of thing.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[ATMAvatar]

Trading money for votes may be legal, but it is neither fair nor ethical. Stop being a shill.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Transfinite]

Yup I guess corruption could be seen as a form of speech. Still it is corruption and should have no place whatsoever in politics.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean it isn't corrupt. There is such a thing as rigging the system to legally profit from selling influence. That is pretty much what lobbying has become. Sure, if we all had the same amount of money to throw around at politicians maybe it would work for everyone. But since a very small percentage of US citizens hold most of the money, that influence is unevenly distributed.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Trepidity]

I'd be interested to see a study of average amounts of money spent on lobbying over the past 200 years. I would guess it's way up, even after adjusting for inflation or economy size.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

No, corruption is when you can determine that definite “pay to play” or vote buying has happened. That is nothing at all like lobbying. The entertainment industry has every right to convince people of their opinion and support those candidates that support their causes. What you’re advocating for seems to be some archaic form of government where no expert opinions can be brought to bear on politicians. Are you actually espousing that congressional representatives already have some innate expertise on every issue that would preclude their being informed by expert lobbyists? By that logic, I can simply go outside of my house and feel what the weather is like to get a bearing for my opinion of climate change. Why should I, or any representative, fall into the trap of listening to highly trained climate scientists who use government funds and promote a message that requires more and more government funds be funneled their way? Lobbying is an efficient and effective way of bringing expertise and nuance into the government’s sphere that otherwise wouldn’t be there.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[mrchaotica]

Individual natural persons have rights. Corporations are legal constructs, which means that the concept of corporations having rights makes no sense.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean it isn't corrupt. There is such a thing as rigging the system to legally profit from selling influence. That is pretty much what lobbying has become. Sure, if we all had the same amount of money to throw around at politicians maybe it would work for everyone. But since a very small percentage of US citizens hold most of the money, that influence is unevenly distributed.

This assumes, incorrectly, that all lobbyists are of the same opinion and work on the same side of the isle. Other than unions (which donate over 95% of their funds to the DNC), political lobbies have a fairly even distribution of funds across political isles. In the case of this issue, you have huge corporations with vast sums of money working on both sides of the issue. There is no corruption inherent in this process as you seem to imply.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

Well, it is all well and good to bring in so called "expertise and nuance" into government so that legislators can make informed decisions. So can I assume that you would be OK with eliminating campaign contributions from these so called experts? Because if not, what you wrote is a bunch of BS and just a convenient excuse for buying off politicians.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[cheekyjohnson]

Giving money to people is indeed speech. That applies to punching people in the face, too.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

Individual natural persons have rights. Corporations are legal constructs, which means that the concept of corporations having rights makes no sense.

I would refer you to Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819. The U.S. was built on corporations having rights. It's one of several factors that made us the most powerful nation in history.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

Well, it is all well and good to bring in so called "expertise and nuance" into government so that legislators can make informed decisions. So can I assume that you would be OK with eliminating campaign contributions from these so called experts? Because if not, what you wrote is a bunch of BS and just a convenient excuse for buying off politicians.

That is certainly an option (not one I would choose, but a resonable option nonetheless), but then you have eliminate all campaign contributions from all groups/people/PACs/etc... If you're going to go fascist and depreive one group of their freedom of speech, then you have to deprive them all.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

"In the case of this issue, you have huge corporations with vast sums of money working on both sides of the issue." That's your justification? So it's not corruption because we have huge corporate proxies fighting for both sides? This is laughable. It' not about which side you are on. It's about the fact that money is involved in influencing a politician to legislate favorably to those who support their campaign efforts. I don't care which side you are on, this is corrupt and it's not how our government is supposed to work. There was never any vision for paid lobbyists within our system. Congressmen and Senators are supposed to be influenced by the voters in their states and districts, not to the corporation who throws the most money at them.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

Trading money for votes may be legal, but it is neither fair nor ethical. Stop being a shill.

No one has been identified as trading money for votes, and lobbying is clearly not such. Stop being deceitful and obtuse.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

Don't you see that in the current system most of us are deprived access to influence? Our votes are the only power we have in this system. I'll never be able to influence my local congressman to pass legislation that favors me, especially if the local corporation can work against me and contribute far more money to their campaign than I can. The simple reality is that this is about who should have the political influence in our country. Because if money is removed from the electoral process then you pretty much remove the influence of corporations and give the power back to the individual voter. But that will never happen will it? Politicians love their money too much and corporations love their influence too much and the American public just sleeps.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[drkstr1]

Which is why political lobbies love the two party system...

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Forty Two Tenfold]

made us the most powerful nation in history

HAHA LOL. No, you're not. First of all, you're not a "nation" because that requires ethnic unifromity. Second, you never were, are not and hopefully never will be the most powerful.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Forty Two Tenfold]

The U.S. was built on corporations having rights

No. The U.S. was built on slave labour and international swindles.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[jo42]

Didn't we used to hang corrupt politicians?

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[heinousjay]

I guess if you give up before you begin, you deserve some sort of prize?

The simple reality is that "the corporations" are run and owned by people, who have just as much right as you to try to influence how things are run. They're just better at it than you are. That doesn't give you some special right to deny them what they want despite your "moral" objections.

Your way isn't objectively better, and you have no inherent right to impose it, no matter how correct you believe it to be.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[countertrolling]

Why not? It permeates virtually all other parts of society... Politics is corrupt by defenition

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[countertrolling]

Apparently so is my spelling...

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Anthony Mouse]

Are you seriously suggesting that a system in which corporations funnel money to campaigns based on politicians' votes, and politicians know this and cast their votes accordingly, is in any material way distinguishable from "trading money for votes"?

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[justforgetme]

I think what AC was reffering to when yelling "corruption" is the fact that You assume that since youtube is backed by Google it is ok to have oppressive and authoritarian IP legislation with severe penalties to whoever gets caught up in it either directly or indirectly.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[phantomfive]

In any fair system, you're never going to have more than 1/100,000,000th of influence, because there are millions of other people voting (note: actual numbers may vary depending on how many people vote).

It is a common mistake for people to think they have 0 influence, when actually it is just very small influence.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[residieu]

Lobbying is fine. You go in, sit down, talk to the Congressman, tell him what your client wants, why, make up some reason why it's good for his constituents.

Promising that you'll contribute to his campaign if he does X is bribery and shouldn't be allowed.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Mashiki]

Really? I thought the US was built on something fundamentally different than revisionist history. But I guess if you stop at 1850 that's good enough.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[scot4875]

Well the reality is that we have a very small influence on who gets elected, but a vanishingly small influence on what legislation gets passed.

--Jeremy

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[phantomfive]

Maybe, do you thing Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell because some corporation wanted it? Or do you think it was to gain favor with the voters?

Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

I agree with Ron Paul 100% that we need to get corporate influence out of our politics.

However, everything else he believes will destroy our economy, his beliefs are economic suicide.

We don't defeat the plutocracy in Washington DC by embracing a vision even worse than the plutocracy.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Dyinobal]

pretty much this for me. I love a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, and I agree with him about 80% of the time but some of his views on the economy and such just feel a bit out of touch with the real world. Still i'm tempted to vote for him.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

its not like he is actually going to get elected as president you blithering idiot. just vote for him. its a vote for change. and if he gets enough the mainstream will change their views gradually to attract your vote.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

so you would also advise me to vote for a racist candidate because our immigration policy needs changing?

hey, asshole: why don't i vote for the candidate i'm comfortable with?

ron paul is delusional, his economic beliefs are insane and archaic. so no vote for ron paul

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[king neckbeard]

But will it destroy the economy faster than what everyone else is doing? The most common criticism of Paul's policies tends to be that it's naive, but naive is usually better than malicious.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Ethanol-fueled]

I participated in the Free Bradley Manning march by Occupy San Diego yesterday for a few reasons - (1) I believe in the cause (2) I wanted to size up the Occupy movement for myself for an unbiased opinion, and (3) I was hoping to see some action and maybe even capture a little police brutality.

If you were there, I was the guy with the water jug who had the idea to use zip-ties to support the banner poles over the overpass, and was the asshole who said, "Thank you, officer!(stirring a few laughs from the crowd)" after he blocked traffic for us.

The following is a brutally frank assessment of occupy San Diego: They are freaks. They are every bad stereotype the media makes the movement out to be. The only participants with any semblance of normalcy were a few affluent ex-hippies with legitimacy in society, but who had obviously done more than their share of drugs in the '60's.

The message itself and calls to rally were pretty good, and a couple of the speakers were passionate and charismatic. However, when I first arrived, a person giving the speech was a transvestite("trap"). It has seemed that the movement was co-opting itself by inadvertently shoehorning a LGBT agenda into the protests. I sympathize with homosexuals and I agree that they have a right to be pissed off, but it does nothing but hurt the cause of the protest when the impression is that of a gaggle of pissed off people looking for something to shout about.

Many of them are like you - dressed like bad LARPers, who were allowed to escape from their entire childhood and now are out of touch with reality. They are pissed because they failed to adapt to society, they failed to see what was coming. That is not to say that their message is wrong, because America is fucked up for all the reasons that they state. The problem is that they appear to be blaming the system because of their own weaknesses and failures, and that is not what "normal" people like you and I want to be associated with. If we join them, their stench of failure will hover over us as well, and it will make more people the laughing stock of the protest movement rather than gain legitimacy.

You want legitimacy? Stop dressing like steampunk cowboys and renaissance-fair rejects, take a fucking shower with shampoo, and put on some decent clothes. Correct the mistakes you made not conforming earlier in life and gain an air of legitimacy. Your spoken message is excellent, but you're making jokes out of yourself with your costumes, reenacting silly childhood fantasies. Grow the fuck up and I might just offer you more support. I know how to do this. But I need your help. You want to give all this tough-guy talk about being co-opted? Take the fucking offensive and co-opt them. The first step to gaining public sympathy is to take a fucking shower and grab a shave.

I want to offer some final criticism - in the official video of the march, the person operating the camera asks a bystander what they know about Bradley Manning, and the woman says, "Um, he, like, sent that thing to Wikileaks." Come on, you can do better than that!

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

ta;dr

(too autistic;didn't read)

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please provide an example that demonstrates that Ron Paul is economically illiterate?

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[wjcofkc]

I really feel you on this one. I agree with Ron Paul on so much but I vehemently disagree with him on some fundamental issues that are close to me and represent some of my hottest buttons. This election season has led me to a new conclusion: as a voter I cannot have my cake and eat it too. If I agree completely with a candidate, something is wrong.

I have decided (grudgingly) that those issues where I agree with him due in fact take precedent over areas where I consider him to be completely backwards. As a rabid left winger (voted for Obama) I never ever thought it would come down to this but as it stands I would vote for him over Obama, Hillary, or any other Democratic hopefuls we will probably see in the coming months. I know I still need to listen to them before I can really make a decision but I have little faith in being presented with anything but the same-old-same-old. Maybe someone will change my mind but Ron Paul is radically different and we need someone radically different.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[SuricouRaven]

That's basically what protests are. There are very few people who will get fired for their cause, so the only ones who go to protests are students and the unemployed. Their counterparts across the divide in the Tea Party movement are every bit as bad with their trefoil hats, and for exactly the same reason. The non-freaks are too busy trying to pay the bills to go on marches.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

abolish the federal reserve, go to the gold standard, etc.

if you need explained to you why this is fucking stupid, you are also economically illiterate

go read up on the banking panics of the 1800s and tell me why you want this era to return. here, start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run

to ron paul and his supporters: try to actually educate yourself on economic history before you try to put forth an opinion on the subject matter

it's like some sort of quasireligion in defiance of all obvious facts and simple history on the subject matter. delusional

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

i don't know

is having no economy better than a system where our politics is influenced by the rich and corporations?

ron paul's economic beliefs will destroy our economy. and then, yes, rich people and corporations will have less influence in washington dc. because no one will have any money to give

abolish the fed? the fucking gold standard?!

have the simple lessons of bank panics in the 1800s left no impression on you? and of course, they haven't because those who embrace ron paul's economic beliefs probably know nothing about the subject matter of banking panics in the 1800s. because they are economically illiterate: they have economic beliefs in direct contrast to simple and obvious lessons of economic history. ignorance is bliss. ron paul's economic beliefs are a quasireligion in defiance of simple obvious economic facts

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[rtb61]

Don't worry the likelihood of Ron Paul gaining the Republican nomination are pretty much zip, zero, null. As he is on the right and opposed to the military industrial complex the closer he comes to winning the primary the less likely are his chances of surviving the race.

If you don't like what the representatives are doing the best place to tackle them is at the primaries. An much smaller percentage of the eligible population vote at the primaries compared to the regular election. So that is the best time to get rid of them.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with Ron Paul 100% that we need to get corporate influence out of our politics.

Be careful making statements like that. Politicians have a way of truncating statements like yours to read, "I agree with Ron Paul 100%..."

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[SumterLiving]

While I sort "believe" the same thing about Mr. Paul, the other candidates economic practices have proven to be (IMO) insane and archaic also. Maybe we should try Ron Paul's insane and archaic economic style. What can it hurt? 3 years ago, the people voted for hope and change and it chould happen again but with Mr. Paul. Better to try something new and insane than proving we're insane by doing it all over again and again.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Thing 1]

The last time we balanced the Federal budget (as in, zero debt, not that just the deficit was balanced, meaning no new debt), was in 1835. Since then we've had several central banking systems which have defrauded the populace of wealth through tricks like printing more money, making existing dollars worth less. In the past 100 years the dollar has lost 98% of its value. Gold maintains its value across millenia: an ounce of gold in Roman times would purchase the finest clothes and accessories; these days, an ounce of gold can purchase a decent suit.

Besides that, bank runs are completely caused by the banking practices, not by the lack of a Federal Reserve, or the existence of a gold standard. The reason that bank runs can possibly exist is because the bankers participate in something called fractional lending, meaning they can lend out far more money than they have sitting in the vault.

The current crisis in Europe was artificially created by the bankers as well. They said some nice words and got the politicians to put all their eggs in one basket that had the bankers' pit underneath it, then the bankers helped the basket tip a little, and what ended up falling out became the bankers' property. This is no less than the economic rape of the first world, and I am actually surprised that no politician has decided to wage war on the "top of the needle" (the structure is no longer a pyramid; those at the top are a long, long way up, and there are only something like 400 of them).

There's a nice video on YouTube explaining all this, which I encourage you to watch so that you will be able to discuss these topics from a more informed perspective.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

without a federal reserve, we get bank runs. which means you can work hard for 10 years, then POOF! it's all gone in a panic. or put it in your mattress. and it's worth less over time due to inflation or the robbers get it

there's no fucking way i'm voting for a guy so economically illiterate and clueless he wants to get rid of the federal reserve and put us back on the gold standard. this is the same class of idiots who believe in creationism and birthers/ truthers: insane beliefs in contrast to obvious facts. this is someone who must never hold power, or our economy is doomed. you don't save us form plutocracy by destroying the economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not vote independent or third party? If it's because they aren't likely to win, then please, stop being part of the problem and vote for them anyway.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

it's like listening to a goddamn creationist

would you please educate yourself as to simple facts of economics and economic history before you vomit this quasireligious belief system of yours in defiance of reality and obvious facts?

you need a central reserve, you idiot. it's not because the Bilderberg Group wants to impoverish you for fun, or whatever the paranoid schizophrenic narrative it is that underlies your delusions. it's to prevent this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

WHY did these bank runs happen, genius? WHAT safeguard prevents them, einstein?

please, start with that link, and EDUCATE YOURSELF, you deranged fool

power in the hands of ron paul, who thinks like you, will destroy our economy. i know you don't understand this, that's what makes you so goddamn dangerous. that so many crackpots are out there like you who believe this ignorant tripe about economics

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Vaphell]

with the federal reserve you got the financial sector growing like cancer, devouring everything in its path, offloading bank risk on taxpayers and a systemic collapse of world economy. Yup, sounds a lot like progress.
Besides you don't bank runs because there is no lender of last resort, but because banks are allowed to have tiny amount of reserves (fractional reserve banking)

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[hjf]

Suit up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWlHxkMZO1A

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Vaphell]

RP wants to allow competing currencies, some of which could be backed by precious metals (as mentioned in the constitution) or whatever. You would be free to do business in any currency you want.

Bank runs happen because banks overstretch themselves not because there is no body to bail their asses out. If the central reserve is so good, then tell me why banks failing like a domino in 2008 burned everything FDIC had in vaults and then more?
Reserve is not safety, it's an illusion of safety. Taxpayer had to step in so people paid for it one way or another. In case of bank run damage is small in scope, while you offload it on the taxpayer, everybody pays.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

so you reform the regulations right?

you don't GET RID OF THE REGULATIONS. right?!

it's insane the way people like you think:

"the lock on the bank door didn't work"

"buy a better lock?"

"no, just stop locking the door"

insane! that's the solution to our economic problems some idiots actually believe

you REFORM the regulations, you don't get rid of them

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[SumterLiving]

I'm not sure what the fed did to save my "retirement fund" during the last 4 years. My portfolio is currently off over 31% during this period and maybe without the fed is could be off close to 100%? It's my opinion that no one really understands the US and/or the world economy so basically all economist are economically illiterate . At least "the man" wants a complete audit so we the people know what the fed is doing. But I guess we can stick with what's not working so well. Thanks for your educated opinion. It certainly made me think and do some research.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

the answer is more and better and stronger regulation

idiots like you believe in cheap circus tricks like the one you just mentioned that amount to no regulation at all

insane, stupid beyond belief. the road to the destruction of our economy

that's what your beliefs represent. i'm sure you don't understand why. because your beliefs exist without a sound understanding of some simple facts of economics and economic history

bank runs and bank panics, the utopia of ron paul and his nutty believers

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Man On Pink Corner]

Translation: "I enjoy rewriting history and oversimplifying complex phenomena to push my own brand of politics."

But are you talking about yourself, or Ron Paul?

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

figure it out, and get back to us with your findings

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[king neckbeard]

Let's just say those are completely stupid ideas. Would the damage they do be worse than the repairs drastic cuts to military spending and the end of many drug prohibitions, not to mention the benefits to business that returning civil liberties will bring? The lion's share of complaints about Ron Paul's policies are in a single sector, the banking industry, which seems to pretty clearly not have it's shit together as is. If you still think that his policy for the financial industry makes him worse overall, then vote for him and a Congress that won't give him that one point.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezus fuck you're stupid! Yeah, let Congress reform financial regulations, that'll fix everything. The same deliberative legislative body who has for over the quarter century reformed the financial sector by DE-REGULATING it! And whatever legal enforcement agencies there are like the SEC, have been thoroughly underfunded and de-fanged of investigative powers . Of course, that's on top of the fact that these agencies are often staffed with people who come from the very same financial institutions they're supposed to regulate and will go back to after they do their stint for "public" service. That's the reason why for over a decade financial criminal investigations have been dropped so as not to upset the real bosses of SEC administration. No, the rot is so set in so deeply, the corruption so pervasive nothing short of radical change is going to set things on a path to restoring the republic to health. But what if it all blows up? Well it's all headed for a self-collapsing disaster. And the millions of people who have nothing left to lose won't care anyway.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

Economics and "the monetary system" are not the same.

When we follow the US Constitution, we see that people on TV who tell financial lies and broadcast segments with economic experts, are in fact the ones who are creating the delusion, what's worse is when the public believes the shit (Domestic Terrorism by the propagandists), we also see that congress has broken their oath to regulate the monetary system itself. (Treason) Perhaps you should read the Constitution and educate.
Things are exactly the way officials want them. Broken. They have nullified the constitution and make state secrets to hide their murder, theft, war and lies. When they should have been regulating the monetary system and keeping it stable so there are no bank runs. So basically your blessed Keynesian "Federal Reserve" is corrupt from the floor to the roof. It don't work! And uh oh, It don't work cause the system didn't get flushed, and whoops the fox is guarding the hen house. Golden Goose is in season!

If you want a Federal Reserve, then actually make it Federal, and not foreign offshore banks with black screen access to make anything out of nothing. There's no reason we should pay anything to foreign banks, foreign interests, or foreign countries to coin our own sovereign country's money, the government can and should be doing it. Such a thing can't come from the same banks, mouthpieces, bloodlines, or officials who CAUSED the problem.

A lot of banksters need to be in jail soon, time is running short, next stop blood in the streets.

Furthermore there is no way the USA can pay off the Debt. It ain't going to happen.

At this point nothing but red-line through every elected person who brought in this unconstitutional crap, through every official who failed still to this day to audit and prosecute the banks.

Fuck the false Left Right Paradigm.
Fuck Economists.
Fuck our oath breaking officials

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

So all those bank crises that happened during the era of central banking, like the great depression, S&L, Dotcom Bubble, Housing bubble... How's that "safeguard" working out for you?

Meanwhile, we live in a system with secular inflation - so it means that you have households where both parents are working, neglecting their children, unable to save for the future, and sinking themselves into debt slavery. If you believe stupid macroeconomic theory, it's you who is being quasireligious and not thinking clearly. Macro believes that you have to inflate because wages are sticky, to decrease the marginal cost of labor. At the same time it says, don't worry, wage inflation catches up with price inflation, so you're not screwing over the poor. Bullshit. You can either have one or the other.

Sorry, your central banking team has already fucked our economy and exacerbated the gap between the rich and the poor. All in the name of 'stability'. Those who sacrifice honest money for a little bit of stability deserve, and will get, neither.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[LuckyPine]

"power in the hands of ron paul, who thinks like you, will destroy our economy. i know you don't understand this, that's what makes you so goddamn dangerous. that so many crackpots are out there like you who believe this ignorant tripe about economics"

You DO realize that the economy IS being destroyed at this very moment? You DO realize that it is not Ron Paul who is in power now? Get your head out of the sand man.

Checkout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyyaE3DIxhc (Understanding the weak points of Fractional Reserve Banking, Kahn Academy)

Educate yourself on what makes it POSSIBLE for these bank runs to happen.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who sacrifice honest money for a little bit of stability deserve, and will get, neither.

Nonsense. Those who sacrifice honest money for a little bit of stability - that is, the so called "1%" - are doing just fine and getting the stability they want

Yes, the 1% are the ones making the sacrifices. They're the ones paying the majority of income taxes after all.

It's the so called "99%", where the bottom 50% don't pay income taxes, who don't have any stability in their lives, and they're probably jobless so they aren't making any "honest money"

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Thing 1]

You rant an awful lot. But please, respond to my point: all those bank runs were caused by the banks, in the way that they set up their system of fractional reserve lending. If the banks could not lend out more money than they brought in, there could never be a banking panic because they'd always be able to pay their account holders. Please, please, even if you must use all caps and swear at me while doing so, please explain why bankers created a system that could be abused in this manner?

I read your link. It does not explain the "why", only the "what":

A bank run occurs when a large number of bank customers withdraw their deposits because they believe the bank might fail. There have been many runs on individual banks throughout history; for example, some of the 2008-2009 bank failures in the United States were associated with bank runs.

It does not explain the underlying mechanisms that are responsible for there to even be an ability to have a run on a bank.

Oh, and have you watched the video on money yet? It would be nice to have a pleasant debate but at least we could have an informed one.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

@circle... Just like all the current European countries with central banks have been able to avoid banking crises? Perhaps you're the one with too much faith in failing systems.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get up in the morning knowing you are so blasted amazing and itelligent?

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[Anguirel]

all those bank runs were caused by the banks, in the way that they set up their system of fractional reserve lending. If the banks could not lend out more money than they brought in, there could never be a banking panic because they'd always be able to pay their account holders.

Yeah... not so much.

Unless you are paying for a bank purely as a place to vault your money (equivalent to shoving it under your mattress -- no interest gained, see also: safety deposit box), that money isn't at the bank because they're lending it to someone. You want your money back? They have some on hand to cover that, but not enough to cover every single one of their people who have money deposited coming in, because most of that money was, in turn, lent out as a loan to someone else. Even without fractional reserve at all (which is a fairly new system, really), they still will never have all of the money on hand to completely handle a bank run.

The ability to have a run on a bank is inherent in having a bank capable of handing out loans using deposited funds in order to pay interest to depositors. Fractional Reserve Systems may increase that capacity, but even a bank that "could not lend out more money than they brought in" could have 0 dollars in the vault because exactly as much as they took in from investors they handed out as loans.

ESR on SOPA opponents

[Kohath]

ESR on SOPA opponents:

It’s a bad bill, all right. It’s a terrible bill – awful from start to finish, idiotic to the core, corruptly pandering to a powerful special-interest group at the cost of everyone else’s liberty.

But I can’t help noticing that a lot of the righteous panic about it is being ginned up by people who were cheerfully on board for the last seventeen or so government power grabs – cap and trade, campaign finance “reform”, the incandescent lightbulb ban, Obamacare, you name it – and I have to wonder

Don’t these people ever learn? Anything? Do they even listen to themselves?

It’s bizarre and entertaining to hear people who yesterday were all about allegedly benign and intelligent government interventions suddenly discovering that in practice, what they get is stupid and vicious legislation that has been captured by a venal and evil interest group.

Yeah, no shit? How...how do they avoid noticing that in reality it’s like this all the time?

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[bigtrike]

When were incandescent bulbs banned? I thought they only banned inefficient bulbs.

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[Kohath]

This is your point? How about minding your own business about what lightbulbs people use?

If you can choose your neighbors' light bulbs, why shouldn't Hollywood get to choose what content you can and can't link to?

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[Halo1]

ESR on SOPA opponents:

It's bad bunch of drivel, alright. It's a terrible flamebait — awful from start to finish, idiotic to the core, superficially pandering to the populist notion that pretty much everything a government does by definition must be evil.

Buit I can't help noticing that a lot of people critical about ESR's latest outings are the same people who've been cheerfully referring to other texts by him over the past decade — Cathedral and the Bazaar, The Magic Cauldron, you name it — and I have to wonder.

Don't these people ever learn? Anything? Do they even listen to themselves?

It's bizarre and entertaining to hear people who yesterday who were all about allegedly benign and intelligent analysis on open source economics by ESR are suddenly discovering that in practice, what they get is stupid and vicious comments that has been captured by a venal and shortsighted view about society.

Yeah, no shit? How....how do they avoid noticing that in reality nothing is black and white, and that in fact almost everyone and every organisation/institution says and does both intelligent and stupid things? And that in case of large organisations, it may even depend on whose actually in charge about something, or the topic it is about?

(before replying, please read the parent's citation)

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[Anonymous Coward]

ESR... is this guy still around? And let me guess, still maintaining felchmail (sic)? Wow!

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[Halo1]

Small correction: I thought "venal" was derived from "venom" (as in venomous or poisoned), but apparently it's related to bribery. I don't think ESR is bribed, so I should have replaced that word from his original text with another one.

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[SuricouRaven]

Correct. It's a de-facto ban on plain old incandescent bulbs because they can't possibly meet the new efficiency standards, but the hallogen bulbs can. It's just called a 'lightbulb ban' by opponents because it's an easier way to stir people up then honestly describing what the law actually does - and shorter too. Shorter helps a lot.

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[bigtrike]

How about if my neighbors mind their own business while I dump mercury into my land? It's not my problem if they have to spend money to clean their well water.

I don't agree with SOPA, but I hardly see how citing examples of government taking action to avoid a tragedy of commons and declaring it a slippery slope helps the argument against it.

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[Kohath]

Get used to Hollywood determining what you can and can't link to then. They can play the analogy game too. And they're better at power politics than you.

If you can pretend your neighbors' light bulbs are your concern, then Hollywood can pretend your web links are their concern.

"Don't these people ever learn?"

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[hitmark]

Yea, i found myself wondering what ESR had snorted before writing that. It is almost a rewrite of the animal farm slogan of four legs good, two legs bad, except it replaces four legs with corporate and two legs with government.

Re:ESR on SOPA opponents

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is his point that the US is too inherently retarded for social democracy to ever work there? I'll buy it. While undergoing surgery paid-for by my nation's single-payer health care system.

Serious question: ***Warning requires effort***

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Does someone want to reply to this post with a list of Senators/Representatives who are for SOPA? If Slashdot had a list of these people, we could just vote them out next election. Intent to violate our first amendment rights should be a good reason to vote them out.

Re:Serious question: ***Warning requires effort***

[icebraining]

List of SOPA cosponsors who have received donations from big media, compiled by the Sunlight Foundation: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/legacy-media-bankrolling-campaigns-of-SOPA-consponsors/

Re:Serious question: ***Warning requires effort***

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for everyone here in California, but I say, that would do much harm to whatever taxes we can collect from advertising revenues on the websites, most of which are headquartered here.

Violating our right to free speech will be the least of the worries to the internet companies and Federal government, as they'll be focused on all the tax revenue that will be hacked off with this.

A simple challenge from the Justice depts, and States, can delay the implementation of this, and that pressure can wipe it out all together.

Re:Serious question: ***Warning requires effort***

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the bill sponsors, you'll never know who voted for SOPA if Congress keeps to the pattern of passing controversial legislation by "unanimous consent", or voice vote:

The voice vote is generally used when the matter in question is either without controversy or paradoxically when the matter at hand is quite controversial and participants wish to enjoy "political cover."

Some "IP" legislation enacted with unanimous consent and/or voice votes

Copyright Amendments Act of 1992
Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994
National Technology and Advancement Act of 1995
Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996
No Electronic Theft (NET) Act
To make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 17, United States Code
Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998
Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999
Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act of 2004
Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005
Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008
America COMPETES Act

And these are just the bills that are passed and signed into law. There's lots more bills that get passed with unanimous consent/voice vote by one house but gets dropped by the other. So when it comes to "IP" laws, citizens are left in the dark about whether their Congressional representatives supported or opposed these laws. Of course, you can be sure that the media corporations know which politicians supported the bills their lobbyists wrote and which didn't.

Re:Serious question: ***Warning requires effort***

[drb226]

List of cosponsors, among other info Copypasta: Mark Amodei [R-NV2] Joe Baca [D-CA43] John Barrow [D-GA12] Karen Bass [D-CA33] Howard Berman [D-CA28] Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7] Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45] John Carter [R-TX31] Steven Chabot [R-OH1] Judy Chu [D-CA32] John Conyers [D-MI14] Jim Cooper [D-TN5] Ted Deutch [D-FL19] Elton Gallegly [R-CA24] Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6] Tim Griffin [R-AR2] Tim Holden [D-PA17] Peter King [R-NY3] John Larson [D-CT1] Ben Luján [D-NM3] Thomas Marino [R-PA10] Alan Nunnelee [R-MS1] William Owens [D-NY23] Ben Quayle [R-AZ3] Dennis Ross [R-FL12] Steve Scalise [R-LA1] Adam Schiff [D-CA29] Brad Sherman [D-CA27] Lee Terry [R-NE2] Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20] Melvin Watt [D-NC12]

Except

[Weezul]

As noted upthread, Lamar Smith is vulnerable since UT Austin lies inside his district, meaning the internet could run a serious campaign against him.

Re:Except

[tbannist]

It seems unlikely. I checked the results from 2010 and he got 69.8% of the vote, that's nearly the triple the number of votes his Democratic challenger got. If he gets the same number of votes in 2012, you'd need to get 100,000 extra democratic votes in that district to defeat him.

Re:Except

[Weezul]

Didn't wikipedia report 61%? You'd need a serious campaign effort of (a) Austin tech company donating money to his opponent (b) people canvasing the district tell people how he's trying to destroy the internet, and (c) a very good democratic candidate, maybe some tech exec, but it's feasible.

SOPA is sponsored with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

It is you who paid them money! Think of it every time you buy music and films from whatever online or offline store.

Re:SOPA is sponsored with your money

[Steauengeglase]

It isn't necessary that you or I rush out and get the latest Lady Gaga. What is necessary are licensing agreements. Who needs us when you can license a single song to Coke? In the mean time the recording industry can play boogey man guaranteeing themselves a nice spot as the middle man in such agreements.

Re:SOPA is sponsored with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

And where does Coke get their money?

People must learn to consume responsibly and to always consider what their money is going to be used for.

"Do-noting Congress"?

[LostCluster]

NBC reported last week that this Congress is on a pace for a record low number of bills passed, and cited the failed Super-Committee effort to reach a budget deal as one of the time wasters as they were doing that required-to-keep-the-Government-running step rather than marking off new territory. So, it looks like we're going to have SOPA floating around for the rest of this term until January 2013...

Re:"Do-noting Congress"?

[Scareduck]

Yay for the "do-nothing Congress!"

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

-- Gideon J. Tucker

It's interesting to me that Smith is in Texas. It always seems like the entertainment biz is keeping cow state politicians in cash. For a long time, one of the senators from South Carolina -- I want to say Ernest/Fritz Hollings -- was in Disney's pocket. The lesson seems to be, buy a Southern politician: they're cheaper and they stay bought.

Shockingly small amounts of money

[transporter_ii]

One of the shocking things to me is how cheap it is to buy your own laws. A million people could part with one dollar and easily block these laws. A million people isn't even 1% of the population. I think we need to start a PAC (or some type of corporation) and start buying our laws just like everyone else. Surly, as non-caring as everyone is about these issues, we could get 1% of the population to go in on some laws that favor the people.

Re:Shockingly small amounts of money

[Xelios]

I'm sure that would work, but it's still disgusting considering the people already pay taxes for just that reason.

Re:Shockingly small amounts of money

[jez9999]

Try Wolf PAC.

Re:Shockingly small amounts of money

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree whole heartedly. It is truly sad how cheaply our legislators sell us out. I suppose people could all chip in a few bucks each so that the 1% would have to chip in a few hundred bucks each. I am sure they can track how much money they have to oppose and should have no trouble outmatching it.. Money buys airtime which goes a long way towards clouding issues and discouraging voter turnout. Big media doesn't seem to mind either. The 99% have become very much like the Native Americans of 150 years ago, a people who are powerless to penalize you when breaking your word. My only hope is that the 1% recognize how tightly their future is tied to the 99%.

I suppose in a meritocracy we can declare success when the one most meritorious person ends up with everything. Do we have to wait for one of two guys at the last table to go bust before we all get to play again?

Re:Shockingly small amounts of money

[drinkypoo]

One of the shocking things to me is how cheap it is to buy your own laws. A million people could part with one dollar and easily block these laws.

If we did that then the entertainment industry would spend more and our media would cost more and then they'd have more money for lawsuits. That is not the solution.

DNS Takedown

[Anonymous Coward]

"That DNS server is spreading my copyrighted internet address, I want it taken down"!

Surprise ? Not.

[mbone]

What, you think that Lamar Smith has suddenly developed a deep and abiding love for DNS ? Or that he intrigued by the parallels between the Border Gateway Protocol (version 4+) and the Book of Exodus ? Anyone who doesn't think he is coin-operated is a mark and an idiot, ripe for the fleecing.

Politicians: not just whores, but cheap whores

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we surprised to see a connection between "campaign contributions" and the legislative actions of their recipients? Probably not. What should surprise us is how cheaply politicians can be bought. Many of us aren't too shocked to learn that politicians are influenced more by bags of cash than by the wishes of their constituents as greed and venality are common human failings. What does shock is how cheaply they can be bought. Bad enough that they're whores, but even worse that they're cheap whores.

Re:Politicians: not just whores, but cheap whores

[king neckbeard]

It's probably worth considering that you have to pay a lot of whores to get the job done. US Congress consists of 535 elected officials, and the 435 members of the House have to be elected every 2 years. I'm not going to say it's still not relatively cheap, but the costs may be a great deal higher than it looks at a glance.

So what?

[ubrgeek]

We all guessed it was the case. Now someone has proven it. The disgusting thing is he's allowed to do it. No one will investigate it. No one will, when the vote comes to the floor, say anything like, "I'd like to point out the less-than-honorable douche bag is a paid shill. I'd like to, but it wouldn't really narrow it down in this once-distinguished chamber, would it?" No one did anything about Meredith Attwell Baker; what she did was legal but equally disgusting. Again, let me say ... so what? And all of the talk about voting for so-and-so because he's pro-[insert thing you agree with] or against [insert something you disagree with] makes zero difference. Change the lobby rules or it doesn't matter for whom you for vote: it won't mean anything different will happen.

As an American, I can tell you what to do

[circletimessquare]

The moron vote is herded like cattle by demagogues who are paid to do so by the Faux News corporate propaganda machine. The demagogues appeal to their prejudices, to ignore the policies that might hurt the plutocracy. So you have the insane situation where the lower middle class hates health care reform, where they are the actual benefactors of health care reform. We have a dynamic where their health and the education of their children is damaged by policies they fully support, because they believe fairy tales like welfare queens with 20 kids and lazy illegal immigrants, that that is the real threat. And they don't want to reward these stereotypes. When of course it is themselves who are having their benefits removed, and the real threat is the corporation who doesn't want their bottom line impacted and the health care insurance corporation who wants the money to keep flowing in the wasteful healthcare system we have.

So what do you do? Forget the morons for a moment, you can't do anything about them. Aim like a laser beam on one issue that even the morons understand: corporate influence in our politics. Keep up a constant drumbeat of how our elected representatives represent the influence of those who pay for the reelection campaigns, rather than the actual people they are supposed to serve. Even a moron can get behind that. It will take time, but enough inertial movement will eventually be established that the point will be too loud and obvious, and even the demagogues can't distract the morons anymore from the real tragedy going on.

It is "We the people", not "we the rich people and the corporations." Hammer on that point every day. This is the weak point in the propaganda machine that the lower middle class morons are currently under full influence of. Their standard of living gets worse every day. And it is exactly because of the agenda of those who pay for the propaganda machine that keeps them spellbound. Break the spell. Show the little plutocrat behind the curtain creating the illusion of the fake frightening Oz.

Re:As an American, I can tell you what to do

[Anonymous Coward]

have you seen the state of the public school system in this country? I don't know where you went to school, but it seems like all of them stress blind submission to authority above everything else. You want to actually EXTEND the school day, like throwing more time at the problem will fix it? Putting more children under the absolute control of little intellectual tinpot dictators who do everything they can to stifle independent thought? Fixing the glaring problems with the school system comes first, there's plenty of morons teaching classes too. Schooling is not necessarily education. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Wrong on 3 out of 4

[witherstaff]

Wrong on 3 out of 4. I know it's snark but why not - I'll give a guy who delivered 4000 babies a pass for abortion, then again from a moral point of view contraceptives are everywhere and adoptions work (Have 2 adopted in my family). Of course he believes it should be a state issue not a fed issue. Gay - and straight - marriage should not involve the gov at all. The idea that the gov gives us the right to marry is asinine. RP supports gays in the military. He voted for repealing Don't ask don't tell. He thinks everyone should have the liberty to do as they want.

Separation of Church and state isn't spelled out in the constitution. Personally I find it silly that even at a township level when a new board is sworn in they do the 'so help you god'. Then again with hundreds of recognized religions, being able to sign up to be a legal minister over the 'net (Universal Life Church even accepts atheists) I'm fine with that. There are far more interesting things than the 10 commandments to put on buildings.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Mitreya]

I know it's snark but why not - I'll give a guy who delivered 4000 babies a pass for abortion,

Why? How about -- I'll give a guy who saved 4000 people in his lifetime a pass for one murder? No? Anyone is entitled to their opinion - but the strength and justifiable source of their opinion does not let them enforce it for everyone else.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[PopeRatzo]

adoptions work

They don't work when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and would die if she actually had to undergo childbirth. Rep Paul claims he is 100% against abortion under any circumstances. He supports a constitutional amendment saying life begins at conception. That means such a woman would have no choice but to die in childbirth. Apparently his "4000" baby deliveries did not give him much regard for the girl babies who grow up to be women. He wants "small government" but he's got no problem turning every bathroom where a miscarriage has taken place into a crime scene.

And abortion is not nearly Ron Paul's worst position. He is an unbalanced old crank who would see the country fail before questioning a single one of his absolutist beliefs.

The place for unbalanced old cranks is the House of Representative, where Rep Paul's permanent crankiness and occasional shit-in-your-pants insanity can actually provide an opportunity for testing some of the flabby rationale of most legislation and where he can't do much damage.

He just doesn't belong in the White House, where he could do a LOT of damage.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[TubeSteak]

Separation of Church and state isn't spelled out in the constitution.

Separation of Church and State is a concept much older than the Constitution.
It gets credited to British philosopher John Locke, whose writings heavily influenced the men who framed and drafted the Constitution.
(The same people liberally borrowed from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, also influenced by Locke, when they drafted the Declaration of Independence)

Heck, the Declaration of Independence's famous phrase about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'
is a gently massaged version of Locke's idea that 'life, liberty, and property' are inalienable rights.

And ultimately, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed and upheld Jefferson's belief that:
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" = " a wall of separation between Church & State"
P.S. Jefferson said that 209 years ago, so you really can't get much more originalist than that.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Man On Pink Corner]

then again from a moral point of view contraceptives are everywhere

Only because batshit religious fundies like Ron Paul were successfully stopped in the past.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, if you read the Sanctity of Life Act you are referring to, Ron Paul does not attempt to make it illegal to perform abortions, he seeks to force the federal government to keep their hands out of it and let the states decide.

"Provisions
The Act would have amended the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.[4]" As taken from the Wiki page

Ron Paul has stated that he is pro-life but has also stated he does not wish to force that on others and wants the states to decide for themselves as that it THEIR responsibility and not that of the federal government. I honestly respect the man for actually acknowledging his views to the world while at the same time making sure not to force them on others.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[ninetyninebottles]

Wrong, if you read the Sanctity of Life Act you are referring to, Ron Paul does not attempt to make it illegal to perform abortions, he seeks to force the federal government to keep their hands out of it and let the states decide.

So currently under federal law abortion is legal in general can only be banned in specific cases. Paul wants to get rid of that law. And you don't think that is tantamount to making abortions illegal? He wants to make it easier for other to make abortion illegal making it inevitable in some places. So yes, he wants to make abortion illegal, otherwise he wouldn't be doing anything on this topic.

Ron Paul has stated that he is pro-life but has also stated he does not wish to force that on others and wants the states to decide for themselves...

Yeah, that's about the same as gerrmandering. Guess what, right now everyone has the freedom to choose to get an abortion or not. And federally, that is also legal. So what does that leave him? Well he can try to put the choice in the hands of states, or if all the states pass laws making it legal will he then try to get those laws overturned saying it should be a matter for county governments?

Paul is hypocritical on this issue. He doesn't value personal freedom, he values choices being made at the government level where his personal opinions are most likely to be enforced as law.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Anonymous Coward]

"He just doesn't belong in the White House, where he could do a LOT of damage."

Are you somehow implying that Obama and Bush belonged in the white house?
The abortion issue is a red herring. It's completely irrelevant in light of the actual problems America is facing. Even if Ron Paul is elected I seriously doubt he will succeed in enacting much change. At best we will get an ineffectual government for four years, and at the rate we are going, this is actually vastly preferable.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Vitriol Angst]

Last week I would have agreed with you,...

but now Obama has allowed the latest "Enabling Act" to pass. He has to check which way the conventional wind is blowing to decide if he is for or against the Pipeline XL project.

Sure Ron Paul is a occasionally bat shit crazy, but occasionally, he does the right thing.

I've given up on "change I can believe in" and now I merely want "change that involves a monkey wrench."

Ron Paul could just be that monkey wrench.

You know, when you can't fix a machine but need a plausible excuse to replace it under warrantee? That's why I may vote for Ron Paul -- break things and see what happens.

/ I may ALREADY be in violation of the NDAA

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[PopeRatzo]

The abortion issue is a red herring. It's completely irrelevant in light of the actual problems America is facing.

Not so. The notion that a group of elites are inflaming low-information christian extremists to provide cover for their dismantling of the middle class puts issues like abortion at the center of the "actual problems" American is facing.

You get low-income and working class whites to vote against their own interests by playing on their desperate religious fantasies and it puts up a lot of smoke for the oligarchs.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[TrekkieGod]

The place for unbalanced old cranks is the House of Representative...He just doesn't belong in the White House, where he could do a LOT of damage.

Man, have you gotten that backwards. The executive branch can't pass laws. No bills, no constitutional amendments, nothing. Do you know what he could do in the White House? Veto the vast majority of bills that go through his desk, unless they can pass with a 2/3rds majority.

The White House is where somebody like him belongs. He can't make his ridiculous ideas laws, but he can provide a check and balance against all the legislation currently being bought and paid for by lobbyists.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[PopeRatzo]

Man, have you gotten that backwards.

OK, I'm convinced.

All you Republicans out there: RON PAUL for president!

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[PopeRatzo]

Ron Paul could just be that monkey wrench.

All right, all right. I'm ready to support Ron Paul.

I'll vote for him if he chooses Bob Avakian as his running mate.

You said you wanted to "break things and see what happens" right? Are you with me?

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Raenex]

So currently under federal law abortion is legal in general can only be banned in specific cases. Paul wants to get rid of that law. And you don't think that is tantamount to making abortions illegal? He wants to make it easier for other to make abortion illegal making it inevitable in some places. So yes, he wants to make abortion illegal, otherwise he wouldn't be doing anything on this topic.

And what about federal drug laws? States like California that have passed medical marijuana laws continually bump into the Feds. He has the same answer -- don't let the Feds regulate and let the states decide, which means there would be more personal drug use allowed than there is now.

Paul is hypocritical on this issue. He doesn't value personal freedom, he values choices being made at the government level where his personal opinions are most likely to be enforced as law.

I think that's a little harsh. He's pretty much a conservative constitutionalist, and not the pick-and-choose kind, either.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[segin]

Humans aren't sentient until they are born (maybe even sometime after.) Before that, they are non-sentient (animals.) Making abortion "murder" would make eating a hamburger "accessory to murder." Please pull your head out of your ass, please.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[segin]

You wouldn't respect me. I push my views on everyone. I'm a diehard Atheist that believes that there is no meaning to life, that our existence is purely by luck, that we're not much more than squishy and internally watery robots (and that thus we have no "soul", no afterlife, no punishment or reward for our behavior except that given during our lives), that humans aren't sentient until at least birth, that the death of any non-sentient being of any species is not murder (else the very act of eating involves murder, regardless of what you eat, unless you eat sterile sand or metal or something to that effect), that Earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and is nothing more than a gigantic computer, that basically all empirical scientific evidence is the truth and that if you believe in anything else, you are a fucking moron and must be informed of these things until you accept them, or otherwise you should be sterilized and/or killed. At least that last bit would end a shitload of wars and arguments and bring peace to the remaining fraction of the human race.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Safety Cap]

Separation of Church and state isn't spelled out in the constitution.

The "right" to purchase ammunition isn't spelled out in the constitution, either.

You're ignorant about how law works. Law is far more than the letters and words written in the law, but the MEANING and INTENT behind those words and letters.

Your little qualifier of "isn't spelled out" is cute...and utterly inconsequential and meaningless. You might as well complain that "Wharrgarbl" isn't in the Constitution. The establishment clause is absolutely in the Constitution and its meaning is clear.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[segin]

Yes, that is oversimplified, and I don't feel like arguing semantics. If a new scientific breakthrough changes our understanding of any of those things, my beliefs change accordingly, if you are wondering.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Anonymous Coward]

The great thing about your personal opinion is that you get to omit context and inconvenient facts from your self-assumed brilliant rebuttal.

You seemed to forget the inconvenient context of your cherry picked "Heck" quote --
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
--- How exactly does this affirm "Separation of Church and State"?

The oft repeated "belief" of Jefferson was merely the text of a sensitively worded political response letter to the Danbury Baptist Association to placate their fears of the United Sates establishing a national religion (that wasn't Baptist). Hardly a major regular talking point!

Personally, I could take or leave any religion. But I can't abide shallow subterfuge of any stripe.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[Anonymous Coward]

Comprehension fail.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[drb226]

Let's sift through this lovely FUD...

They don't work when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and would die if she actually had to undergo childbirth.

Stats on how often this actually happens, please. In no way do I belittle the women who have to go through this traumatizing experience, but it just isn't that common.

Rep Paul claims he is 100% against abortion under any circumstances

[citation needed]. I have a hard time believing Paul would actually side against the women whose lives could be saved via abortion. Even if he did side against them, as president he'd never get congress to support him.

He is an unbalanced old crank who would see the country fail before questioning a single one of his absolutist beliefs.

Meaningless sensationalism. I'd say it's unfounded, but you didn't actually say anything, and it's hard to call such a content-free sentence unfounded.

The place for unbalanced old cranks is the House of Representative

Your POV is showing. I have a hard time taking anything someone says seriously when they believe the sort of thing you'd expect from an 8-year-old: "[X]s rule! [Y]s drool!"

I Have a Better Idea

[Greyfox]

Just vote them all out. This entire Congress is ineffective and corrupt. Let's turn it into a revolving door until we find some people who care more about the American people than making money for the next election.

Re:I Have a Better Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was told I would only get a few years years to create effective legislation, among hundreds of other representatives, millions of voters, through a labyrinth of laws written over the course of 200 years, I'd have to say, good luck..

Here's a better Idea: don't require Congress to make decisions with Your life.

Re:I Have a Better Idea

[Undead Waffle]

Oh that's a great idea. Just keep rolling the dice until we win! Who needs to pay attention to what their elected officials are doing and decide if the new candidate is really better? (hint: he isn't.) The fix is to get good representatives nominated and then elected. Replacing people won't do anything until you have a good replacement.

I look up every candidate on the ballot every time I vote. Unfortunately, usually the most reasonable candidates are in another party. I mean the ones who think for themselves and actually form their own opinions rather than regurgitating their party's talking points. It would be nice if some of these people were on the ballot for the major parties so we could get them into office.

Re:I Have a Better Idea

[Greyfox]

Right now we could pick people randomly from the phone book and have better results than what we currently do. I'm sure a few election cycles of flushing Congress would do us a lot of good.

The idiocy of "intellectual property":

[Anonymous Coward]

I found this example especially fitting:

Imagine a craftsman going "So I'll fix your wall, but I don't want you to pay me $500. Instead pay me $5, but everyone who ever has any use of that wall, has to also pay $5. And if you let anyone in without him having paid first, I'll sue you both for $500,000,000, call you and all your friends 'rapist sea-thugs', and even though I am only a one-person company that makes less money than your cleaning lady, will force the government to change the law so they will hunt you down like drug dealers, just for me. Oh, and I'll not do it myself, but let somebody do it for me, who I pay $0.17 for every $5 I get, and have him buy the materials himself from that money." -- Evi1M4chine

Preventing behavior

[Memroid]

Why are campaign contributions allowed? Would it be possible to ban these? If not, due to the people 'in power', it seems like our system needs better checks and balances in this respect to better enforce the will of the people. Are people just voting in bad apples or is the entire political system corrupt? Does a majority of the people really believe in the things that are occurring, or has control been taken away from those in the general public?

I think the point was

[rsilvergun]

that Ron Paul's being put forward as the candidate for personal freedom, but that his stance on several issues isn't consistent with the ideology of personal freedom so long as you're not infringing on others. If personal freedom is a core tenet of his ideology it stands to reason he would apply it at a Federal level; because it's a basic principle he would found government on. You wouldn't leave such things up to the States, any more than you would leave them up to individual counties. e.g. If you start breaking down your core principles of governing and saying that you can leave them up to a smaller body of gov't (States instead of Federal), where does it end? Couldn't separate laws apply depending on what part of the city you live in? But even the code of Hammurabi required the law apply equally to everyone.

So to summarize: If you can't count on Ron Paul to apply what he touts as his basic principles of gov't at the national level, then what business does he have running the national gov't?

Re:I think the point was

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Different laws exist in different states all the time. It's simply a matter of opinion about what that should and should not apply to.

But like I said, they aren't big enough problems for me that I wouldn't vote for him.

If you can't count on Ron Paul to apply what he touts as his basic principles of gov't at the national level, then what business does he have running the national gov't?

Like, for instance, cutting it back? Stopping censorship schemes that will affect the entire nation?

Re:I think the point was

[Vaphell]

There is that thing called the US constitution. It says that the federal level of government can do only so much and there rest is none of its business. RP being strict constutionalist thinks that the constitution says what it says in plain English and the words written there have precedence over his personal beliefs.
If you want to have something else, you need to do it the right way and amend the constitution, not to reinvent the meaning of the words only because the ends would justify the means. Well intentioned creative interpretations start the slippery slope and sooner or later you go from the rule of law to the rule of men who don't care what the law actually says and what rights you supposedly have.

Re:I think the point was

[rsilvergun]

Right, but certain laws are not legal in any state because they violate what we consider core tenets of a just society. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are the Republican's favorites. Freedom from discrimination is the Dems. Those are core ideological concepts for how a just society is governed. What the grandparent was getting at is that Ron Paul espouses a core ideology that is built around personal freedom, but refuses to back that up with policy. He can still be a constitutionalist and be consistent with this ideology. All he has to do is start lobbying for an amendment to make gay marriage a right. But he's not doing that, and so his position is ideologically inconsistent.

Re:I think the point was

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not and never will vote Ron Paul. That being said, marriage is not a right. He is correct not to try to lobby for it as such.
The many issues raised when talking about making gay marriage a "right" are whether or not it's a local governance issue, what defines gay, and what defines marriage. Nowhere in there is a fundamental human condition that applies to all people. Equal treatment under the law covers the issue of sexual preference. The 15th Amendment was a step back, implying you have to recognize special cases when judicial law traditionally covers this. Gay Marriage does not come close to meeting the criteria of being a right, regardless of the related 15th Amendment.

Re:I think the point was

[rsilvergun]

I'd agree with you if Marriage was simply a religious our thought construct without any legal or financial ramifications. But that's not the case. Marriage is defined in our legal system as a certain type of contract between two individuals. There are many practical effects to Marriage; insurance, divorce proceedings, child visitation rights, etc. The argument goes that the Gays can have something like Marriage but that's not Marriage. The trouble with that is that in law small differences in wording make big differences. If you give them Marriage w/o the legal effect it's not Marriage. If you pass a law that says Gay unions are just like Marriage, well, you've just legalized Gay Marriage.

What defines 'Gay' doesn't matter. What matters is that two consenting adults are allowed to enter into a free contract that is recognized as having certain legal advantages and obligations; and are allowed to do so so long as positive harm to society cannot be show. This is not a fundamental human condition; it's just requiring that the law apply equally to all.

Now, if you're argument is based on the fact that homosexual Marriage is inherently harmful to society, then you've got something there. Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins. We don't let cousins marry because their offspring would have deformities due to inbreeding. There is positive harm to society and the child by allowing that. We also do not allow Polygamy, because allowing one man to monopolize the pool of available women creates a dangerously unstable society (e.g. lots of men with no prospects for a mate running around angry and violent). I don't want to start of this debate, I'm just trying to point out that if you're a libertarian you need a different argument against homosexual Marriage besides 'State's rights'.

Re:I think the point was

[Anonymous Coward]

> Marriage is defined in our legal system as a certain type of contract between two individuals

Marriage is a legal construct. This is not a right. It DIFFERS from locality to locality because it's a legal construct. There are different KINDS of marriages (common law being partially recognized based on location). A driver's license is a legal construct. You are still confusing a right with something that is malleable, by design, for the current needs of society.

> What defines 'Gay' doesn't matter.

If you want to make an amendment, using the term, is specifically does. Again, the 14th handles this, so you can only hurt the movement from that angle.

> Now, if you're argument is based on the fact that homosexual Marriage is inherently harmful to society, then you've got something there.

There is no logical reason or study that would indicate this.

You've failed to make a case on all points.

Re:I think the point was

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in terms of abortion, he does put his own personal beliefs before the constitution. He actually wants to pass a law that says that states would be able to create laws that the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to review! He also wants to pass a Federal law that defines the fact that life begins at conception. This is for the express purpose of allowing states to make laws banning abortions.

In other words, he personally believes that it's so important for states to be able to remove women's personal freedoms that he's willing to pass unconstitutional Federal legislation. If that's not a slippery slope, I don't know what is. While I'm all for states' rights, I'm even more for personal rights.

dom

Re:I think the point was

[segin]

Wouldn't polygamy also allow a woman to have multiple husbands? And the man with multiple wives, his wives could then have multiple husbands, and you don't just end up with a married couple, you end up with this weird marriage net. Or matrix. Or star-topology marriage network. Say! Can you run IPv6 over it?

Re:I think the point was

[segin]

I'm in favor of giving all Christian males (Ron Paul and family included) vasectomies, not doing so has a positive harm on the society at large.

Re:I think the point was

[scot4875]

Quit making this a women's rights issue. Nip it right in the bud and say "no, a fetus is not a person. End of story." By arguing the whole women's rights angle, you lend credibility to the idea that a fetus is a human being in the first place, and that now you're having to argue whether the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the fetus.

Don't play their game. Until it knows its own name, it's not a person. I'm willing to compromise and say that at birth it becomes a person.

--Jeremy

idea for change

[Anonymous Coward]

Form a political party that has only one talking point:
To change the constitution so that the "first past the post" system is changed to proportional representation like in almost all other democratic countries; and let that party also solemnly pledge that they will hold new elections immediately after the constitution has been amended.

From then on things will slowly repair. But a two-party system is self-perpetuating madness.
PS unfortunately this didn't work in the UK when the Lib-Dems gained influence, but maybe the US has more luck.

Not only Lamar

[actionbastard]

They have this guy, too:
Chris Dodd, Ex-Senator, Named MPAA Chairman
at $1.3 million/year.

Stretching the truth to pass SOPA:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/04100017081/chris-dodd-resorting-to-outright-lying-desperate-attempt-to-get-sopa-passed.shtml

More:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/24/christopher-dodd-as-mpaa-chairman-can-he-save-hollywood.html

being oblivious the moment their direct interests

[duguk]

From TFA;

being oblivious the moment their direct interests aren’t threatened

Well, duh. Who knew?

do you know what i honestly think?

[circletimessquare]

i think you are gay. you are a closeted homosexual who has not come to grips with the contrast between his upbringing and what your family and society expects of you and your true innate homosexual impulses. i'm being serious

look: as a heterosexual male, homosexuality or gay men have no effect on me. it doesn't frighten me. it doesn't arouse me. it doesn't confuse me. it doesn't do anything for me at all. i feel nothing. make me watch gay porn for hours and what will i do? i will fall asleep. BECAUSE I'M NOT GAY

now show some me a pair of full breasts or a nice ass, and i will get promptly aroused and excited. because i'm a heterosexual male. duh! show me two guys kissing and what do i feel? anger? arousal? confusion? no, i feel nothing

so whenever i see someone getting REALLY upset at this hypothetical shower scenario, i think: you are a closeted homosexual. if you were straight, you simply would not care

and in fact i think a lot of homophobia is driven by people like you: deeply closeted gay men deeply in the closet, projecting their internal psychological struggle onto the outside world. we suffer, because you haven't come to grips and made peace with the fact you are a gay man. accept it, deal with, move on, and stop forcing us to bear witness to your ugly struggle between the societal expectations you have internalized and your true identity

i'm 100% serious. the greatest loudest homophobes in this world are deeply closeted gay men. no one else except them care so much about homosexuality. i'm looking at you rick santorum

Re:do you know what i honestly think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look. As a normal person, I can watch hours of two girls one cup videos and I feel nothing. It doesn't do anything for me at all. What would I do ? I'd fall asleep. BECAUSE I'M NOT INTO SHIT.

Now show me a pair of full breasts and nice ass and I will get promptly aroused and excited, because I'm a proud hetero male. duh! show me two girls shitting in a cup and eating it and what do I feel ? anger ? arousal ? confusion ? no, I feel nothing.

Re:do you know what i honestly think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're making strong conclusions. I myself don't find any issues with homosexuality, but assuming that because someone doesn't tolerate it is gay... it's just wrong.

I'd add that very religious people with strong ideology that homosexuality is wrong has been raise with the taboo that it's not right to be close to them (some even think it's contagious, I'm not kidding).

So while I agree with you in some points, just claiming that people intolerant to homosexuality is gay, seems like a strong Freudian case. Don't mix intolerance with homosexuality. Intolerance to abortion doesn't make you a dead fetus.

hmm

[buddyglass]

Does anybody really think Google would let something like SOPA get in the way of YouTube? I don't.

Gays already in the military

[Anonymous Coward]

and have been since the Revolution. So that shower with "50 other guys" - you would be as likely to shower with a gay as now. The only difference is you KNOW it, because they are now allowed to serve openly. Previously they had to lie to get in.

Note that all the GO's have endorsed the open serving of Gays in the military. If you're in the military now (as you seem to indicate), you have to choices: 1) accept that what was previously happening but hidden is now open, or 2) resign your commission/quit your position and go back to the Civilian world.

CircleTimesSquare, u r "economically illiterate"

[Anonymous Coward]

CircleTimesSquare, I can suggest you are "fucking stupid" and "economically illiterate".

The Wikipedia article of the 1819 bank run. It has the following quote:
American bankers and businessmen started issuing false banknotes to quickly expand credit. American bankers, who had little experience with corporate charters, promissory notes, bills of exchange, or stocks and bonds, encouraged the speculation boom during the first years of the market revolution.

So it was AMERICAN BANKERS who contributed to the bank run. And your solution is to give the Fed (AMERICAN BANKERS) control over the money supply.
If everyone used GOLD COINS then the American Bankers simply could not issue false banknotes.

I can agree a "gold standard" doesn't work, but for a different reason. It doesn't work because it is a promise made by bankers (you can get gold) that the bankers invariably break. The only solution is that people must trade with gold coins or something else that has inherent value, instead of bits of worthless paper.

Anyone who supports the Fed obviously supports bankers continuously screwing over the general population.

Nonsequitor

[10101001 10101001]

So...RP can't be for an issue because the US Constitution currently forbids it, even though the US Constitution can be changed to allow it and RP could run precisely on the platform of changing the US Constitution to support those issues he believes in? Instead, he has to run within the confines of the law as written and not have selective interpretation, which means he should be for things like the Federal Reserve which are clearly within the purview of Congress to enshrine*? I see...

*The US Constitution specific vests within Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;". Now, I'm going to take a wild guess here and presume this doesn't mean that Congress is supposed to own a coin minting machine and actual print coins. Instead, it means they have the power to create institutions to create coin money. Similarly, they have the power to create institutions to regulate the value of that money--that's the point of the Federal Reserve. The only real iffy part is that it's supposed to be "coin Money" which implies metal must be involved at some level (and technically those metal strips in money might count), but that seems a pretty irrelevant technicality. I mean, if "paper" money were made out of aluminum fibers, do you think RP would be okay with it?

Re:Nonsequitor

[sidthegeek]

And don't forget the Defense of Marriage Act.

Again. LOL.

[Colin Smith]

You idealist you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/opinion/22herbert.html

What you really mean is. "Throw them to the politicians".

WHAT

[Legion303]

The politician(s) trying to ramrod shitty legislation through at all costs was paid by the very people it would benefit? No one could possibly have predicted this.

Mainstream News

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom watches NBC daily, and my dad reads a few sources. I've asked them if they've heard anything of SOPA, and that's a negatory. Not even a tiny little blip.

Has anyone else notice this?

My guess is that it's because the mainstream news is owned by the same people that want SOPA to pass, but that's just a guess.

Americans are not willing to pay the bill

[Colin Smith]

Ironic you should choose the Wizard of Oz. You may want to read up who Baum supported, and on the symbolism behind the book.

15 trillion in debt and growing exponentially. Now more than 100% of GDP.

They can't afford all the things they are buying now.

The rest of the world is just as broke, you think you are going to be able to continue to sell your debt to fund your spending? China is about to crash, Japan has it's own problems, Europe is in a shambles and the American government is spending what 30%? 40%? more than it earns year after year. The only country in the world which can get away with deficits like that year after year is the one printing the world reserve currency. Any other would have collapsed like a banana republic.

So who is going to pay for it all? The FED? Because that does appear to be the answer and that would be well and truly banana republic territory.

Re:Americans are not willing to pay the bill

[tbannist]

There's a several infographics around that show how the majority of the deficit is attributable to Bush policies. About 90-95% of it is the tax cuts, the wars, and the unfunded drug plan extensions. Ironically, the Bush tax cuts gave away about the same amount of money as the Bush wars cost. Talk about doubling down on stupidity. Bush should have raised taxes by 3% on those earning more than $250,000 per year and the debt would have grown only by the 1.8 trillion spent on stimulus. Which could be easily be paid for out of the taxes after the wars ended.

The U.S. is more than able to pay for it's programs. However, the people with 40% of the money would rather not.

ESR == Libertarianism W/o Context

[cmholm]

So, ESR considers equates SOPA with the following as power grabs:

>> "cap and trade, campaign finance “reform”, the incandescent lightbulb ban, Obamacare, you name it"

More to the point, he equates attempts to assist the public interest by: 1) mitigating climate change, 2) limiting the power of big money to buy representation and reelect entrenched incumbents, and 3) provide health insurance as a public service rather than a profit center to putting the Federal Government at the full disposal of entrenched IP rent collectors.

Coming from Eric, or anyone else, this demonstrates my problem with libertarians: glued to a dogma, regardless of the context.

Let's get one

[residieu]

So at $50,000 it shouldn't really be too hard for us to buy ourselves a few Congressmen. What's the rate for Senators?

Re:Let's get one

[Legion303]

"What's the rate for Senators?"

Remember, haggling is perfectly acceptable. They've already established what kind of people they are.

Fourteenth Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. was built on corporations having rights

Of course. Why did we need to amend the constitution with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution in order to allow corporations to have rights. They already *MUST* have possessed these rights.

It happened 90 years after the framers died. They never intended corporations to have the same rights as people.

Gee, modded down - there's a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

USians can't take criticism - they can only give it. They've got no balls - what a stupid bunch.

Oh well, your empire is going to shit anyway. Good riddance to trash.

You need psychiatric help

[Anonymous Coward]

I could make much better arguments about why Conservatives and religious people should not be allowed to seek political office, much less join the army.

For one thing, we need people with intelligence and emotional stability, and not people with delusional beliefs about "God", or racist and fascist ideologies about poor people and the unemployed...

Which reminds me, that Eric Raymond fellow just sounds like another shill for the Right Wing, with his complaining about a generic "them", with the typical Right Wing slogans of the Conservative movement: "Obomacare", etc.

It's too bad that the Conservatives are deliberately trying to divide people into fascists vs. Liberals, anti-intellectuals vs. Intellectuals, rich vs. poor, idiots vs. high IQ people.

If you would put more effort into helping people instead of developing absurdest arguments about how gay men can only take showers with gay woman, then the world wouldn't be so miserable a place to live. But then again, you probably don't realize how incredibly stupid you sound, and are in denial that you are an idiot.

It's too bad that people like you still have a lot of influence in society, even though there is so much opportunity for Conservatives to educate yourselves. Ignorance is not a virtue.

Attack the root of the problem

[dannycron]

Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress - and a Plan to Stop It
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc&context=C349f019ADOEgsToPDskICcsFRzm_JR9R5CgvBaWHA

The truly educated man

[SuperKendall]

Or that socialism isn't a dirty word.

How odd. I thought we were talking about education, not brainwashing. Because a truly educated man (or woman) would read enough history to know that every time socialism is tried it always devolves into tens (or hundreds of millions) dead and the state standing on your throat.

There's this bizarre attitude in this country that a parent knows best.

How odd that someone who is closest to someone might know best what motivates and educates them!

No, instead yank them away for the good of Mother *insert despotic country name here*.

I realize my post means that if many of you gain power I'll be sent to the work, er "education" camps, but I am past caring in a last-ditch effort to try and point out the end game for where thoughts like yours really lead so we do not repeat them yet again.

Re:The truly educated man

[HopefulIntern]

How odd. I thought we were talking about education, not brainwashing. Because a truly educated man (or woman) would read enough history to know that every time socialism is tried it always devolves into tens (or hundreds of millions) dead and the state standing on your throat.

Seems to work pretty well for us here in Norway. Or did you mean communism?

Isn't corruption illegal in the United States?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is legal, it would very clearly make the United States a Corporate Dictatorship. Most of us will probably appreciate that attempts at democracy in the United States collapsed long ago, but I was unaware of just how bad the situation has become. What an awful place to live. I really am glad I am not an American.
US law enforcement needs to act quickly, and ensure that those who are guilty of such blatant and obvious corruption are put on trial.
I have seen this kind of corruption on numerous occasions in African countries. It is common there, to have companies pay 'elected' representatives huge contributions to make favourable decisions. It has been ruinous for these countries. Americans need to stop talking about 'democracy' so frequently, and put their own house in order. The regime is Washington is crass and criminal.

It's all about free

[kekePower]

I guess we're all on the freeciever end and hate it when "our Internet" turns corporate and strict.

Say what?

[binford2k]

ESR compare the incandescent bulbs and "Obamacare"* with SOPA?! It's no wonder that nobody pays attention to him anymore.

* Which I place in quotes because it's really a code word that says "don't listen to me because I'm an extremist without sense to think on my own and instead spout off buzzwords I heard on Fox News." A sane person would call it health care reform or single payer health care.

Raymond can go fuck him self

[MasterHundinco]

Eric S. Raymond can go fuck him self. I have health care and can now afford to go back to school because of "obamacare".

Re:Raymond can go fuck him self

[Ramin_HAL9001]

@Eric S. Raymond, you talk about campaign finance reform as if it were some leftist big-government plot. It may be a leftist plot, but how the FUCK is it pro-big-government? The problem here is that politicians are in the pockets of special interest groups, and reforming that is a bad thing because somehow it increases regulation? This is the same bullshit Utopian mantra, that any increase in government is bad, that caused the problem to begin with. I'll spell it out for you, though I think it may be an idea too complex for you to understand: the left wants minimal government too, just not to the degree you that want to minimize it. What you shithead libertarians want is an all-out anarchy: minimal (i.e. zero) government by any means necessary.

Then he goes on to bash a straw-man, claiming that liberals only know how to ask the government for stuff when things go wrong. Excuse me, SOPA is unconstitutional because it eliminates our fundamental right to free speech and the technological means to do so. What fundamental rights does Obamacare take away from you? The right for your wife to get an abortion? Your right to NOT be taxed? Oh yeah, your a right-wing retard who thinks the whole world is so fucking simple that if you just minimize government we will turn into some kind of Utopian paradise, all you do you cry and whine all day about our president being a socialist. I bet you also like the fact that some billionaire has bought-up the NYPD and commanded them to beat the shit out of people practicing their first amendment right to peaceably assemble, because you fucking LOVE freedom don't you?

Liberals hate SOPA. Social conservatives also hate SOPA, but in their delusional, twisted little imaginations, SOPA is just another socialist big-government plot, when it was the special interest groups, and a republican-controlled congress that caused it all. Amazing how they are able to turn it on its head and blame the left for this. Fuck Eric S. Raymond in his every one of his Rush-Limbaugh-parroting, Fox-News-bullshit spewing orifices.

They didn't bring down the world

[Colin Smith]

It wasn't till the FED that they managed to create truly co-ordinated world wide depressions.