Slashdot Mirror
House Kills SOPA
An anonymous reader writes "In a surprise move, Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced that he will stop all action on SOPA, effectively killing the bill. This move was most likely due to the huge online protest and the White House threatening to veto the bill if it had passed. But don't celebrate yet. PIPA (the Senate's version of SOPA) is still up for consideration."
Sopa is a piece of shit!
Good work!
Do you mean to tell me to tell me that in 2012 the government is actually listening to the will of the people? Man, the world really IS going to end!
As a non-US citizen that's been watching the developments of this closely, I am extremely glad that this has happened. Hell, I'm sure everyone is. Now just need to do something about PIPA, and we can breathe a nice sigh of relief (for a while)
We did it!
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
I hope that the senate will get a clue and cancel it's deliberations also. We just need to keep the pressure up.
Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
I for one have been in contact with my Rep. and have written letters to both of my Senators. I will also being calling them both today. We're making progress. Let's keep it up.
CALL YOUR SENATORS!!
The people who brought the bill in the first place, are still active; and still receiving funding. More fundamental provisions are called for, to ensure such bills are not tabled in the first place.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
It'll be back in another form in just a few moments.
I wouldn't exactly consider examiner.com a "reliable source", especially when the article has no supporting evidence.
All these posts on Slashdot about how bad the bill is really made a difference!
examiner.com is essentially a blog, was this the best source for this information? There's no links to a reliable news source, no links to a .gov site or the congressman's announcement, just "hey he blocked it hurray!"
Is anyone else reporting that SOPA is dead?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If you keep in defense, this will keep coming with pipa, popa, schupa, schmugga, and eventually they will succeed. The only way to fix this issue, is to go on the offensive, and passing legislation that will prevent such crap, and neutralizing the content industry and its assaults.
google, amazon, ebay et al - its their task. they need to start buying congressmen/senators, and start buying laws, now. Because thats how the capitalist democracies work.
Read radical news here
I hate to be a dick on this one but, uhm, [citation needed] ?
Was SOPA a redundant bill with PIPA out there?
At the end of the movie when you think the monster is dead it is often revealled that something survived...
The sponsers of this still have deep pockets and a desire to maintain an income from a now flawed business model. Whose to say that what comes next isn't worse?
The bill has been SHELVED, not killed. A lot of bills in the past came back after being shelved and got pushed into law when the opposition to it quieted down (e.g. the Patriot Act). Keep up the opposition. Do not let them pass this bill again!
I'm curious whats actually going on? So, distract the populace with a ridiculous bill, meanwhile push thru and organize... what, the war on Iran, or prepare for the collapse and dissolution of Euroland, or maybe its time for the Argentine economy to collapse again, or ... My point is you ram thru an over the top #1 story to overshadow the #2 story, so what is currently the #2 story?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
They just got caught. They'll try again when people are distracted by something else.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There's no links to any announcement in the cited story. There's no corroborating stories in the straight media, and no announcement on Cantor's website.
For once, money couldn't buy legislation in America!! I think I may have a heart attack....
The blogger is a bit overenthusiastic at the bill behing shelved. It's far from dead.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Being an outsider, I don't understand how the US system works. Are the House of Representatives and Senate both proposing bills to a third party? Will the first one to make it win, or is it usual for two overlapping bills to be accepted? What if bill 1's penalty for an offence is X, and bill 2's penalty for the same offence is Y, is the end result max(X,Y) or X+Y?
I wonder if the entertainment industry will announce a pro-SOPA blackout in response.
Imagine the howls of anguish if The Hobbit was delayed for a few months :-)
But not in the way many slashdotters might think.
Little appreciated here on Slashdot is the fact that SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left. Many conservatives and libertarians rightly see SOPA has a HUGE power grab, and massive step towards an even more centralized government.
Eric Cantor is very tied in with the Conservative Blogosphere and with conservative internet "consciousness". As such he promised early on to do his best to kill SOPA.
It appears that he has kept his promise. Well Done Mr. Cantor. Well Done.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
I recommend an article that has actual quotes from Darrell Issa (the person who is talking to the press about this). The bill is on hold until the wording is changed in the bill so more people agree with it.
Opening 2 paragraphs from the cnet article:
The latest string of setbacks for supporters of the bills came Saturday when Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the Oversight committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, said that he was promised by Majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) that a vote on the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) will not occur "unless there is consensus on the bill."
"While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act [a similar bill to SOPA introduced into the Senate last year], I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House," Issa said in a statement, according to the blog The Hill. "Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any antipiracy legislation coming before the House for a vote."
Its not what it is, its something else.
Nuf said
With the House in majority Republican control and Cantor killing the bill, it doesn't really matter what the Senate does. This happens all the time when the Senate and the House are controlled by different parties. One will pass legislation that the other will never even take up just to be able to tell their voters "we passed a bill on X but those evil guys in the other party in the other side of Congress thwarted us". The only reason the White House was against it is that Obama listened to several of his top IT advisors who strongly came out against it. But in general Congress isn't really smart enough to understand what the legislation is about. It just became so toxic for a variety of reasons (a lot of big contributors on the IT side probably threatened to cut donations if it passed) that it wasn't worth the fight. Democrats have traditionally been more pro-entertainment industry and pro-lawyers than Republicans so I have to admit to being surprised that the White House didn't back it anyway. Plenty of Republicans back the entertainment industry too, they're just slightly less inclined to do so.
By the way, one of my former co-workers said that he did contact his representative in Congress. He did not say who his representative was (most likely it's a Republican) but he said that it was clear that his representative really did not understand the bill at all and was framing it in the simplistic "Let's stop evil job stealing piracy!" terms that the entertainment industry has used to sell it to Congress.
I may disagree with you 95% of the time (or more; who knows!), but if what you say is remotely true (and I have no reason to doubt that), then today I think we are all thankful for what has happened.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It's January 18 right? So they can still do the campaign, just replace the letters to read PIPA ... unless the Senate version gets pulled tomorrow, also in time to be ahead of the protests.
(Do we still do the protests? Or will people whine "well we already won, so why bother protesting?")
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
FTA: "...is a good demonstration of how the Internet enables Democracy." Thus ensuring that politicians everywhere hate it and want to kill it,
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Most people have no idea what SOPA is, and the blackout day protest -- especially the Wikipedia blackout -- would have helped raise awareness, perhaps even reaching a critical mass (if Facebook and Google joined the protest, almost every Internet user in America would know about SOPA). What will happen to blackout day now that SOPA is shelved?
At the end of the day, people are going to be just as unaware of SOPA as they were prior to the bill being shelved. It may still come back, quietly, over and over until websites grow weary of planning blackouts.
Palm trees and 8
That's not an anagram. But these are!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
"the White House threatening to veto the bill if it had passed"
We all know how that went with the defense appropriations bill. It's a gangster government, children, where money plays power. Call it crony capitalism, call it overreaching socialism. Whichever, same result: if it puts the screws to the common man and adds to the power wielded by the government, Obama will sign it. He protests like Ron Paul protests earmarks. Which is to say: for show.
It was nice to see all the support and coming together of folks everywhere in getting this bill canned. It makes me wonder -- what if we, the Internets, could push for getting some of our techno-liberties back? How 'bout they stop spying on us? How about we push for some money for infrastructure (we should already have fiber to the home)?
It's great to see folks unite against tyranny, but I think there's a whole lot more we could do if we all stuck together like we did with this most recent attempted takeover of the Internet.
This is good. The next step is to keep Lamar Smith from getting re-elected. Right now he's running unopposed for the republican nomination in a district that includes parts of Austin, a very techie town. With the right amount of national support for "Anybody but Lamar Smith" he can and should lose his seat over this.
The requested URL
SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left
Really? It sure looks like the right wing politicians in our government -- which includes almost all the politicians in Washington (don't kid yourself; we live in a very right-wing age) -- were highly supportive of SOPA. Why would they not be? They give hand-outs to corporations all the time, and they rarely pause to think about the effect on our civil liberties. It was only because of the libertarian element of the Republican party that this bill was shelved; there are just enough libertarians to create a potential problem.
SOPA Is very much a right-wing bill. What could be more right-wing than attacking a system where anyone can communicate equally, regardless of where they fit into the hierarchy of society? The point of SOPA is to curb the free and open nature of the Internet and to reinvigorate the power of established corporations and government agencies -- sounds very right-wing to me.
Or are we only operating under the Fox News definition of "right wing?"
Palm trees and 8
Magic powers stored in his horns? Kabbalistic chanting? FOR GOD'S SAKE don't look behind you, they're coming for you noooooowwwwwwwwww!
Antisemitic nobber.
In saner years you'd be right that it would be stopped. But there's something wrong this time - the push for the bill vs the content was so strong, the strongest I've seen in years. It's beyond "they got caught" - of course they knew they'd be hated for it. But they'd already stated "we want to pass this anyway despite your opposition". So if you'll allow me to go all Monty Python, "it's not dead, it's resting!" Let's assume the senate version rests too.
This situation reeks of a Meta-Campaign. So they'll either rename it, or worse, split the components among other bills so that there's nothing to rally against.
Try this - they're introducing it this time before this election round. Then once the people are re-elected "now they have nothing to lose" so they'll resurrect it next year. Or some such variations on a theme. The point is, just because it's sleeping, it's definitely going to wake up. Except for some surprise fallout, thousands of companies were drooling at how much fun power they stood to gain from this.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
How can a single representative kill the bill?
Because he's the House Majority Leader.
Why is a Jew in such a powerful position?
Because it's America, where even an Anonymous race-baiting Cracker such as your own fine self can get elected to Federal office.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
PIPA is the greek word for "blowjob"
What is IcanHasCheezburger think of the bill?
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/funny-pictures-neighborhood-watch-committee-of-one.jpg
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Why is a Jew in such a powerful position?
Because the global zionist cryptarchy decided that he'd make a good frontman, obviously.
Well, either that or he managed to persuade more of the electorate to vote for him than anyone else in his constituency.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
SOPA is not about government control of the media or the economy; it is about the government helping corporations maintain their control over such things. SOPA is about ensuring that the big brands get to remain in control over our lives, and it is a step toward a long-term goal of converting the Internet into a fancy cable TV system, where consumers can only consume. That is a right-wing goal, at least under the standard definition of "right wing."
Yes I know that it is fashionable to describe everything that falls short of libertarianism "socialist," but there is nothing socialist about SOPA, and socialism is not the be-all and end-all of left wing politics.
Palm trees and 8
They'll dust this thing off and pass it during the lame duck session after the election.
I know this will blow your mind, but maybe left vs. right isn't the appropriate fight here. Most of us Americans are hung up on it, but maybe it doesn't always apply as much as you would think it would.
The second axis of the political world is corpratism, and corporatism is heavily represnted in both parties. Look at the names of the people pushing this bill. It has nothing to do with party. It had to do with the hugest corporate consitutencies pushing dollars into politician's pockets.
The corporation patches on their suits may be slightly different, but BOTH parties are corporatist. Stop thinking everything is left vs. right or pretty soon there won't be any debate because there will be ONE group in charge and you'll be against the wall if you say you don't like it.
Then why did it have the support of MOST of the republicans?
Hell even many of the current republican presidential candidates have voiced their support for SOPA.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't make me admit that greaseball did something actually useful! Argh!
Maybe you have more in common with constitutional conservatives and the TEA Party than you think.
By the "TEA Party" I mean the individual local groups...not that group that attempts to paint itself as the "official national" TEA Party...it's not and never was either "official" or "national" and does not represent the views of the majority of the thousands of local TEA Party groups and their members. The TEA Party consists of thousands of relatively small local groups and intentionally has no national leaders.
The national group and certain individuals attempting to portray itself/themselves as the "official national" TEA Party leadership is nothing but a creation of the Republican Party "establishment" (with collusion from "establishment" Democrats) as an attempt to either co-opt or destroy the TEA Party, as the TEA Party is an existential threat to the political "establishment" of *both* major parties that has brought us Democrats and Republicans that are little different in their actions and policies once elected.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is the story on the House Oversight Committee website that announces that work on SOPA has been postponed (not canceled or killed yet) and the first link in the story is an Outlook Web Access redirect link. So you have to sign into the house.gov OWA server to get to it. Yep, these guys should be figuring it all out for us.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Obama never threatened a veto of the Defense bill because he thought it was wrong to engage in due process free detention in violation of the 4th and 5th amendments -- he threatened a veto because he was worried that the bill would spawn a case that would cause the Supreme Court to have to review whether the president can usurp the power to be sole judge and arbiter of the people's freedom (in violation of the 4th and 5th amendments).
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Rejoice, denizens of the interweb. We won this battle. But the war is far from over.
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
It's about media control of the government and economy.
FTFY
What is it with you Americans and your fear of anything that could be remotely connected in to 'left' or 'socialism'. Who cares? If something is good, it's good. And if something is bad, it is bad and anybody who knowingly supports something bad like this deserves his place in hell. Whether he is a right wing socialist or a left wing republican.
House kills the bill... was it lupus?
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
No. Just because you know a swearword, it does not fit in every situation.
According to your definition, Spain at the time of Charles V was socialist.
He'll just call them "RINOs." Republicans are very concerned with the purity of their race. This move today is pure politics. Cantor wants SOPA but not the blame. He'll let the Senate pass PIPA then the House will pass it. He gets everything he wants. He gets PIPA and he gets to blame someone else. I'll give him credit the day he blocks PIPA as well.
Will. Not. Happen.
Since they came at it with 2 bills all SOPA (which received the most publicity) ever was is a sacrificial lamb, meant to destroyed to appease the public and let PIPA through, and PIPA (arguably the worse of the 2 bills) has to be taken down as well so no time to rest on laurels continue the good fight.
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
http://www.craigslist.org/about/SOPA
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
On the extremes, the Left is all about no one getting upset (bad words, someone making more money, etc..). The Right is all about you doing what they want while they profit from it.
Look at that. SOPA/PIPA fits both agendas nicely which is proven given how much support came from both sides.
You can blame both sides for this one - sure it was introduced by House Judiciary leader Lamar Smith, a Republican, but co-sponsors include Democrats Howard Berman, John Conyers, and Ted Deutch, amongst others. You would think someone on a Judiciary committee could write a bill that wouldn't trample all over first amendment rights, but Lamar Smith has that one down to an art. This is at least the third piece of legislation I know of that he has sponsored that has been tossed out over first amendment concerns.
Many businesses strongly supported SOPA, including Ford, Pfizer, the BSA, the ESA, NBC, Go Daddy, the MPAA, the RIAA... the list goes on. The problem is, it was business friendly to a fault, giving copyright holders unprecedented power to shut down sites, whether they were violating copyright or not and without requiring proof. There was no way this would ever pass a legal battle in court - it was killed as it needed to be. At least this one was killed before it got to court - congress has done a good job of passing these things and then having them immediately killed.
Now maybe we can wait for the China to bully us by threatening sanctions in the same way we bullied Spain...
Corporatism is just a facet of the right wing. Right wing politics are about the maintenance and strengthening of the hierarchy of society, and corporations fit squarely into that hierarchy. Consumers are supposed to consume, and corporations are supposed to produce -- that is the hierarchy that bills that SOPA are meant to strengthen. The entertainment you want, the brand name shoes you wear, all of this comes from corporations. You are a consumer; you are not supposed to be sending copies of movies to your friends, you are not supposed to buy handbags or cosmetics from unauthorized foreign sources, you are not supposed to be able to route your away around the hierarchy -- that is SOPA's philosophy.
It is the difference between the Internet with its peer-to-peer nature, and the cable TV system with its hierarchy.
Palm trees and 8
Dr House saves the day again!
it was introduced by House Judiciary leader Lamar Smith, a Republican, but co-sponsors include Democrats Howard Berman, John Conyers, and Ted Deutch, amongst others
You are apparently operating under the assumption that the Democrats are not on the same side of the political spectrum as the Republicans. The Democrats have shifted so far to the right that by now the best you can get is a centrist. The few democrats that linger on the left side of the spectrum are on the fringe.
Palm trees and 8
I'm a hardcore liberal hippie and even I know that a lot of the hardcore liberal hippies are on precisely the wrong side when it comes to piracy measures. The reason? The entertainment industry is a massive donor to left-wing causes.
How can a single representative kill the bill?
Because he's the House Majority Leader.
Why is a Jew in such a powerful position?
Because it's America, where even an Anonymous race-baiting Cracker such as your own fine self can get elected to Federal office.
BURN
I usually look at the political spectrum as left vs right (extremes being "true communism" and "true capitalism" respectively) and up vs. down (authoritarian vs libertarian). I would agree that SOPA is not left vs right, but rather Up vs Down. SOPA is strictly an authoritarian measure, giving more power to the state to control its citizens.
Many republicans are also in favour of an authoritarian government. It does not mean that SOPA = right wing, at least not directly.
any Former Imperial British Territory will most likely use the British terms/meanings/protocols UNLESS they were so violent in chucking the brits out that they decided to do "anything but the british way"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
..."we live in a very right-wing country" ...
There corrected that for you ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
It's corporate welfare, possibly on the scale of the "too big to fail" banking and auto industries bailouts. The supporters of this bill wanted the government to be thier own copyright police at taxpayer expense.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
NONE of the major news services or newspapers are reporting that the SOPA bill has been killed.
Wonderful; now that they failed to pass this draconian legislation openly, the Congress Critters and their deep-pocketed media puppet-masters will attempt to secretly stuff it into a different, "must-pass" bill, as was done with the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA.
Keeping the Republic these days requires never-ending vigilance.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
There's big money behind this bill. The politicians are funded (heavily influenced) by that big money. Rest assured that SOPA is not dead, but will in fact come back surreptitiously in some other form.
You never really "win" in politics. You only win for a while. Like many things in life.
The House or Senate can pass a bill (and may do so for political reasons) but unless both ultimately pass the same version it's a non-starter. The Senate can also kill consideration with just 1 Senator opposing it putting a hold on it. The real thing that is needed is ongoing pressure and education of our representatives - a personalized reasonable letter (mailed; email has much less effect) is a powerful tool. If enough letters get received congress will notice. Posting as AC to avoid undoing a mod.
Ha! Zontar lives! Good one old friend.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Little appreciated here on Slashdot is the fact that SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left.
The left side of the political spectrum is not represented in America. The two major parties represent the right, and the really right.
Not saying it's necessarily bad, but it is another example of the fallacy of choice, the same way that two brands of ketchup from the same factory & spout is "choice" per se, but not really.
I know this will blow your mind, but maybe right vs. further right isn't the appropriate fight here. Most of us Americans are hung up on it
FTFY
Score one for the Canuckistani bioinformaticist. :)
SOPA Is very much a right-wing bill. What could be more right-wing than attacking a system where anyone can communicate equally, regardless of where they fit into the hierarchy of society? The point of SOPA is to curb the free and open nature of the Internet and to reinvigorate the power of established corporations and government agencies -- sounds very right-wing to me."
For some definition of "right-wing" that is so broad as to be mostly useless. (Unless your point is, "what's considered 'left' in the US would be viewed as center-right anywhere else".) It's a "corporatist" bill, and most American Senators and Representatives are in the pocket of corporations, including many of those who pass for "left-wing". The entertainment industry is the primary proponent of this bill. Among the sponsors of the (PIPA) bill in the Senate you'll find such "liberals" and proponents of 'net neutrality as Al Franken (who last year was keynote speaker at Netroots Nation, but I'll bet he has "schedule conflicts" that prevent going to it this year).
Virtually everybody in Washington ("right" or "left", Obama or Bush) wants to keep extending the power of the government, witness the recent vote to extend the "Patriot" act.
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. Kill it off now so everyone's as happy as a pig in shit about it being shut down. The absolute second that the votes are tabulated, no matter who wins, it's guaranteed that passing this under some other name (if they even bother renaming it) will be the exact first thing on their agenda. Behind closed doors, of course.
The lack of replies and tepid moderation for your comment is indicative of why the political system is broken: people barely care enough to complain, and when told the crisis is over they don't punish the politicians who are working against them.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
It's a left-wing bill. It's about government control of the media and economy. Government control of that sort of thing is otherwise known as "socialism".
Socialism is about Government ownership of the means of production. Government control of media is a propaganda machine, and has a lot to do with tyranny which can be capitalist or socialist (although Government takeovers are probably likely even if they're primarily capitalist).
SOPA was a "bought and paid for" by the media production corporations bill. To call that socialist is absurd. It's a CORRUPTION issue.
most likely just used to make pipa look better by comparison. that way sopa gets killed due to all the attention on it, but pipa gets passed because it looks saner but still as bad.
nice... was it by Lupus?
Or they'll attach it to another bill that's likely to pass on a voice vote. Top contenders:
- military omnibus spending bill
- bill to increase the debt ceiling
- some bill with an acronym for preventing child abuse
Think whatever you want about the left-or-right nature of the bill, but your description of socialism is dead wrong. What you're describing is statism or communism (depending on your particular definition and example implementation). Socialism is merely government redistribution of tax money for various public programs. National parks, roads, Social Security, Medicare, your unemployment insurance, fire departments, police, public school, all draw from taxes at some level, and all of these are arguably necessary in some manner for a strong nation and a healthy populace.
The last thing this country needs is cutbacks in our social programs.
PIPA in greek is a synonym for BJ lol!...
or pretty soon there won't be any debate
What do you mean "pretty soon"?
There is currently no meaningful debate in American politics, only posturing on superficial or social issues and very strong bi-partisan agreement on:
- Less civil liberties, more state surveillance (NDAA, warrantless wiretapping etc.)
- Interventionist foreign policy, supported by an over-sized military-industrial complex
- Unconditional support for Wall Street (no meaningful regulation)
- Corporate interests always take precedence/outweigh individual citizens' rights and well being
- A political system with a high barrier of entry (unchecked campaign spending, no representation for small parties)
And yet SOPA/PIPA were/are supported by both of California's Democrat senators and many of its Democrat representatives as well. Right wing bill, my ass.
No, this was very much an interdenominational bill. It was supported by most career politicians, regardless of whether they preferred fifties or hundreds.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Remember this day! 20121216
Notice this pattern - in almost mysterious way, forces that can adversely effect this new organism are deterred.
Vassili Leonov
OMG, you can't reduce politics to one dimension? Who knew?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
FWIW, I found this post useful as a layman's summary of the differences between PIPA and SOPA.
Of course, now that they're 'massaging' both of them to make them more digestible, this may no longer apply...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
He's publicly said he'd veto it, so sneaking it into a bill is a death sentence for that bill. Romney opposes it too, but I'm a little worried. As has been pointed out in another thread the basic principles of the bill are in line with the right wing's general principle that strong hierarchy is a good thing. Moreover, Obama's actually in a position right now where he can veto the bill and has shown he will. Romney's still just campaigning and could easily flip flop. Obama's words carry more weight because he can actually do it, so he's in a put up or shut up position...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We need to stay vigilant..
Vigilance.. /me throws the eye ball into the goblet.
Uhh, no.
That doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche to do whatever ridiculous things they want to do.
If we can also kill PIPA, we should then try to fix the copyright term. Drug companies are somehow able to make a profit with a 20 year patent. Getting a successful drug to market can take 10 years and up to a billion dollars. Why should a song be copyrighted for 120 years from date of creation?
No, this was very much an interdenominational bill.
No, I'm pretty sure the bills involved were very denominational. Probably $100s.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
SOPA is statist, not socialist but the two almost always go hand in hand.
Its not about giving a few large companies or a few big brands an advantage, its more about how certain members of the upper social class have given over their sovereignty to the political class in exchange for the right to keep their position.
Actually it looks very much like the Leninist system if you read your history but with much nicer trim this time around.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nah... I'd never call it "Socialist". Fascist, perhaps.
it might be parts of austin, but it's the conservative parts (why doing massive power shifts means "conservative" nowadays, I still don't know...). He'll be re-elected - the fact that he's unopposed in the primary is because he's such a sure bet. Sorry. (used to live in that district. Far from it now)
man this formulaic wannabe stephen colbert hacky shit is annoying
Despite the media blackout on this issue the Internet publicity mobilized massive reactions to this awful bill.It of course didn't hurt to have some powerful corporate allies like Google and Microsoft.
Just as the later know how to cooperate when their shared interests are threatened, SOPA was fought as much by Progressives as Ron Paul style Libertarians.
If this was a sign to come, and these two grass root powers were to learn to join ranks on other issues that they agree on (i.e. civil liberties, military interventionism, legalizing pot) I'd feel much more optimistic about America's future.
No, I didn't mean "4Chan" in my subject line but "Change"
(Slashdot: Why do you let me enter the last characters in the subject line if they are then truncated!)
Well, here's the checks and balances that we, the people, have:
Voting the politicians that are doing it out of power - requires a majority of people who actually care, so it's rather unlikely
"Second amendment remedies" - immoral, incredibly dangerous, potentially way overkill (don't need to kill the politicians, just need to stop them from passing laws like this), and illegal, although potentially highly effective
Boycotting the businesses sponsoring the bill - ineffective except against smaller businesses
Interfering with the businesses sponsoring the bill - potentially highly effective if done right, but illegal, and can be difficult, and potentially falls under the "second amendment remedies" category but with innocents getting caught up in the fire, too
So why don't We The People start labelling our "representatives" in government as either "Corporatists" or alternative stances? If enough people could start labelling groups of politicians I suspect it could redraw party lines and ditch what we call Democrat/Republican. Let's label them appropriately and make it stick.
-
Democrats are authoritarian centrist. Republicans are authoritarian right.
Not a sentence!
While I understand the point, your link doesn't exactly tell why he was allowed to kill the legislation. It talks a lot about the position of House Majority Leader, without actually saying what they do.
Uhhh, no. That is not a left wing bill. It's an authoritarian bill.
And I think it can be argued equally as strongly that the end game to capitalism is fascism. Especially when you have large corporations that more or less have reached critical mass, and are no longer accountable to the people.
Come on now, Slashdot opinions barely percolate out to the rest of the technology-aware parts of the Internet. If anything it was Reddit and their "Operation Pull Ryan" that shook up the discussion. We're Protoss with no carriers. Reddit is Zerg.
Won't like 90% of the websites that have messages that are anti-SOPA just reword them to mention PIPA instead?
At the library of Congress:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03261:
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
But not in the way many slashdotters might think.
Little appreciated here on Slashdot is the fact that SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left.
It's more accurate to model political affiliation in 2 dimensions [1], authoritarian/liberal vs. conservative/progressive. If you look at Congress, the problem is that most elected representatives on both sides of the spectrum are authoritarian despite whether they're conservative or progressive... meaning there are almost no true liberals (free love AND free trade, ie, left-libertarians) representing us (one could say they don't represent the people anymore).
By this measure, SOPA was a full-on authoritarian bill. It was popular in DC, because it catered to big business which loves authoritarian legislation (removes uncertainty and easy to game) and it was fully business friendly.
It also highlights the fact that the Internet as it currently stands is a true bastion of liberalism. For all it's warts and dangers, it is a bulwark against the 1984-style authoritarian singularity. We must defend it.
[1] http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Don't confuse "conservative" with "Republican." The 2 are not even tangentially related, no matter what Republicans would have you believe. (And if you have any doubt, take a look at the size and scope of the Federal government (and the deficit) under Republican administrations since 1980.)
And yet SOPA/PIPA were/are supported by both of California's Democrat senators
Probably because Hollywood supported it, and they are huge in California?
Granted, Silicon Valley is huge too. And at least the House members (both R and D) from around Silicon Valley fought against it.
don't kid yourself; we live in a very right-wing age
We are approaching a form of feudalism in which we have the corporations of capitalism as feudal lords and the individuals of socialism as serfs. There's nothing "right wing" in there, unless you are trying to say that corporatism is right-wing. It's not. It's a festering boil on both wings.
Why is this possible?
1. Occupy. They want a stronger government to punish corporations and individuals. Nevermind that its the corporations running said government.
2. Democracy. People strongly believe that the majority should rule *no matter what* and American history is the history of ever stronger majority rule at the expense of individual rights. (Which makes it easier for those with money to get what they want, since the average person is easily duped.)
3. No opposition party/bi-partisanship. Throughout history we've had a party that was against the federal government as a whole, mainly because they weren't in charge of it. They, of course, changed their tune when they were in charge of it, but usually the other party then picked up the slack. Now we have two parties bought and paid for by the same group. Despite the dog and pony show, they basically get along with each other and constantly work to strengthen the federal government.
And yet SOPA/PIPA were/are supported by both of California's Democrat senators and many of its Democrat representatives as well. Right wing bill, my ass.
It depends on your definition of "right wing". If your definition means following the silly idea that there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans (besides which groups they pander to), and that "Democrat" == "left wing", then you're right. If your definition takes a more global view, then almost all politicians in Washington are "right wing", so the parent is correct.
Depends whose spectrum. What the US calls the left, we would call the center in Europe. What we call the left, the US would call communist, and what the US calls the right we would call extremist puritan nutcases.
Oh, believe it; all of us that complained, wrote, and signed petitions are most definitely on The List (of people to be watched).
I seriously doubt that. Why bother with cash when they can just make a direct deposit into a numbered Swiss bank account?
Maybe you have more in common with constitutional conservatives and the TEA Party than you think.
Nope. Most of them are still "Fuck the poor!" and don't believe gay marriage is a civil right. By that, I mean they are perfectly fine with states banning gay marriage, despite the fact that such bans explicitly violate the "Equal Protection Clause".
This is a sad day, when even the government gives up on chasing criminals. Small content developers are ripped off by unscrupulous "sharers" and businesses like megaupload that actually make money from illegally distributing content.
One of my apps was quite popular on a particular pirate web site, which advertised it as free. They claim to have authored the app! Unsuspecting people have heaped praise on them, made support and feature requests. If I tally the first 20 sites from g..gle results, I get about 2 million downloads, but the sales are something like 3000 units. If you search for the app on g..gle, you get all the pirate sites, but no links to the genuine item on Android market.
The only recourse was sending DMCA, but most of the time you get ignored or laughed off by dodgy sites in dodgy countries. Also, this is really sad thing to do, spend your time sending DMCA to people. I sort of hoped SOPA would make at least a bit of a difference.
If you would take your head out of the sand, you would see that.
For example: Obama is in bed with Goldman Sachs, and Microsoft, just as much as any republican. Don't kid yourself.
Regardless, I don't think there's a large contingent of people who think the Democrats are not really liberals and who also think that Stalin and Pol Pot were good guys.
You are dedicated to your generalizations and anecdotal based arguments but what would you actually DO to replace the existing system? If you are going to complain you should at least be able to explain in detail how you would change things. All of the Occupy and Arab Spring cheerleaders never thought about what would happen if they succeeded on crashing a system. It would also have been prudent for the Occupy movement to be a little more detailed about what they were protesting against. They may have needed bigger signs to explain their goals but all they have done is protest for the right to protest. History is full of examples of people clamoring for change and then being unable to come up with viable courses of actions after they win the street battle. I'm pretty sure the Liberal/Progressive student groups who participated in the Iranian 1979 revolution did not envision ending up with a theocracy based government whose first act was to kill anyone who disagreed with them. They were so focused on taking hostages and complaining about the US that they allowed the Islamist groups time to organize and implement their plans. Theocratic based governments may be detestable in the extreme but that doesn't mean the people running the scam are stupid. The Islamist were a minority before the revolution started but the ineptitude of others gave them the time to take control of the system. The US removed the Iraqi and Afghanistan leadership to give them a chance to implement change and both of those countries wasted their chance. Iraq started a civil war the day the US left and the same thing will happen when the US leaves Afghanistan.
Those in Egypt and other middle eastern countries are also starting to realize that they should have been a little more prepared just in case they won their glorious revolutions. As it stands now most of those countries are in the process of destroying themselves from the inside. Maybe they will be able to re-build but I don't really give a shit what they do. Thankfully the majority of the US public and both major political parties are against US involvement outside of making press statements and attending UN meetings.
Obama was happy to sign the 2011 NDAA. And he has certainly done nothing about the patriot act, and anything like that.
If you would look at the actual evidence, instead of sticking your head in the sand, you would see there is no difference between dems and repubs. Everything you think you know about the two parties is a myth.
Also, don't confuse "liberals" with "Democrats." The Democrat party of today is not the party of 1950s. Dems are on the side of the corporations, not the working people.
Also, they didn't want it took look like a Democrat saved the Internet.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I think, the way it used to work is: the repubs were supported by the corporations, and the dems were supported by the unions.
But unions have diminished in the past few decades. Today practically all manufacturing has moved offshore. So now we have the both dems, and repubs, supported by corporations.
I know the war isn't over, but why shouldn't we celebrate every victory?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Obama also said he close gitmo, end the fighting in Afghanistan, and so many other things.
Obama says a lot of things. I see no reason to believe to word of it.
No.
We'd call it the Moderate Right. :-/
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
The 'extremes being "true communism" and "true capitalism" respectively' look identical to me. Someone told me in "true communism" everyone gets paid the same regardless of effort. In my limited understanding of the former Soviet Union, the communist party leadership got the bulk of the pay/benefits. Whereas, in "true capitalism" the only recognized forms of capital seem to be money, brand, or property and the people holding the money/property get the bulk of the pay/benefits. One could argue that time, labor, and knowledge are also forms of capital. In my understanding, the U.S. constitution was set up to limit the power of any one group to control the republic. (A republic is a govenment wherein the people elect representatives to represent their interests whereas democracy is a govenment wherein the people vote on every issue themselves.) If the people with money are able to pay lobbiests to help the newly elected representatives retire their debt, (See "Capitol Punishment" by Jack Abramoff), it would seem that the representatives have an obligation to represent the interests of the people paying the lobbiests over the interests of the people electing them. At that point, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize the government as a "republic" much less as a "democracy" or as much different from the Soviet style communism. I believe the value of a "market economy" is in its ability to deliver a distributed power system. Everyone votes for what they want by how they spend their money. This motivates them to work hard for their money. The more the money is distributed, the more motivated the people are to work harder. If the power is concentrated and the powerful are greedy, money will be concentrated and the bulk of the people will not be motivated to work hard or will only work hard in an illegal black market economy. (SOPA is a sign that the powerful are greedy.) I believe this type of system lead to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. As I said before, "A capitalist in a communist society will maximize profit/effort by minimizing effort." Which society do you want to live in?
Sooner or later there will come a time when lobbying and sending letters will do nothing, when protests and rallies are worthless. At that time, the only way to change a politicians mind will be to scramble it with a bullet. We aren't there yet, but its going to happen sooner or later.
I've heard it said that Freedom can only be bought with blood. Really, it isn't a purchase but a rental. How long will it be until the rent is due again?
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Uhm...
You are insane.
Nice try, but it was the GOP-controlled House and Eric Cantor who killed it. It's the Democrats, far more than the GOP that is beholden to big money Hollywood donors. Had it been '08 or '09 when the Dems were in control, this bill probably would have gone through, just as PIPA will probably go through the Dem-controlled Senate. You should be grateful for the freedom-loving Republicans in the House that will strike that monstrosity down, too.
While the opposition finally got organized against these special interest lobbies one ought to consider action on revoking ACTA next?
Sorry about the misspellings. When is the slashdot going to get a on the fly spellchecker?
Most of them are still "Fuck the poor!"
Pure demagoguery. Just because someone else has a different idea on how best to help the poor that you either disagree with or are incapable of understanding doesn't mean they don't genuinely care for those less fortunate. Please stop blindly following talking points and try a little mental effort on your part while applying intellectual honesty.
...and don't believe gay marriage is a civil right. By that, I mean they are perfectly fine with states banning gay marriage,...
Actually, they don't believe government should have anything to do with marriage, period. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Government should not be in the business of regulating religious ceremonies, whether they be straight, gay, or otherwise, any more than they believe that the government should regulate what days one may worship, the length of ceremonies, which texts may be read and distributed, or the type of candles to be burned.
They oppose gay marriage as an expansion of government power that shouldn't exist in the first place. Why is everyone on the left so opposed to government being involved in anything remotely religious *except* when it comes to the religious institution of marriage?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This was as expected, since it was obvious from the start that the intention was never to pass the bill in it's current form. The motive was to get the big Internet companies to donate (bribe) more to the politicians.
Exactly. Government control like the police force, justice system, military, and public roads -- all left-wing "socialist" ideas.
Obligatory Monty Python.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If we didn't give the government the power to hand over our freedoms to those corporations on a silver platter, the corporations would never have become as big and scary as they are.
What to do? What to do?
Constitutional amendments:
Laws:
Nationalize the following industries (or re-regulate heavily):
That's my plan. Once these things are in place, other issues will probably fall into line fairly quickly.
That is all.
Sounds good to me, but as a resident of Texas I can assure you that the Republicans have the congressional districts quite thoroughly gerrymandered to prevent any opposition to the Will of the The Party from succeeding.
WALSTIB!
because 99% of them are corporatists
. Government control of that sort of thing is otherwise known as "FASCISM".
fixed that for ya, socialism is control by the people, control by the government is fascism, little detail big difference,
SOPA IS DELAYED not cancelled they didn't kill it they are posturing and trying to figure out what to change about the bill before they have hearings on the bill
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120113/23560217407/sopa-delayed-cantor-promises-it-wont-be-brought-to-floor-until-issues-are-addressed.shtml
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
To pay artists with public funds and give their works away for free would be socialist. To give the companies power over the law is associated with facism.
When asked why, the answer is almost always: "It's 2014".
Sounds like you just volunteered to fix that page, Hoss. :)
Beause marraige isn't just a religious institution. It's a civil institution as well. Plenty of people who aren't religious get married.
There are lots of things assoiated with marriage - from paying taxes to receiving benefits to being able to jointly enter bankruptcy to being able to direct medical decisions involving your comatose/unconscious spouse, etc.
I'm sure "the left" would be just fine with leaving marraige to the church if all references to it were also removed from the non-church parts of society. However, being married has a lot of non-religious consequences in our current legal system.
He never implied that he has a problem with Jews, but I have to wonder the same thing.
You are not fooling anyone other than yourself. The original question was:
Why is a Jew in such a powerful position?
The very asking of this question implies that it is somehow remarkable or out of place for a Jew to hold elected office. It is not.
How about Cantor's counterpart on the Democratic side of the aisle, Rep. Nancy Pelosi?
Why is a woman in such a powerful position?
Let's go higher up... to the Oval office:
Why is a Black in such a powerful position?
Same-same but different. (Yawn.)
Jews have entirely too much power and influence in the entire world, and people would do well to stop giving them more power.
No-one has power over you that you don't give them.
Now, armed with this knowledge, you may proceed to grow up and start accepting some responsibility for your condition. The Jews didn't put you in it, and they ain't gonna get you out of it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Because that power would just sit back and stay empty, right? It's not like power abhors a vacuum or anything. And it's not like the tiny government you desire would actually be able to do anything to stop it.
Nice try, but it's Muslims that hate the Jews.
Pure demagoguery.
No, it's pretty correct. The demonizing of the poor by the right wing shows that they truly have that "fuck the poor" attitude.
Just because someone else has a different idea on how best to help the poor
It's not that they have a "different idea". It's that they are actively trying to parrot shit that absolutely does not work, and are trying to bring about outcomes that have no basis in reality. They want to remove funding for scholarships used by poor people, yet still expect those people to be able to go to college. Then, when they can't afford to go, and have mostly shit jobs to choose from as a result, people like you look down on them and say, "Well, you should have worked harder. Then you could have made something of yourself." All the while conveniently forgetting that YOU were the result of the same aid you would seek to deny others.
Actually, they don't believe government should have anything to do with marriage, period.
I'll believe that when they actually campaign to remove straight marriage from the books. Until then, that's just a convenient cover story for them to be against gay marriage without having to appear like bigots.
Government should not be in the business of regulating religious ceremonies, whether they be straight, gay, or otherwise, any more than they believe that the government should regulate what days one may worship, the length of ceremonies, which texts may be read and distributed, or the type of candles to be burned.
They oppose gay marriage as an expansion of government power that shouldn't exist in the first place. Why is everyone on the left so opposed to government being involved in anything remotely religious *except* when it comes to the religious institution of marriage?
Why do people like you refuse to see that marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a civil one? I can go down to the courthouse and get married, with absolutely no context of religion. How does that fit into your worldview that it's a religious institution.
Please stop blindly following talking points and try a little mental effort on your part while applying intellectual honesty.
Nothing you have said has been intellectually honest, especially bringing up that shitty argument that they "only want government out of all marriage!" That argument is tired, debunked, and is only a thin veil for showing that someone is a bigot.
Corporate socialism (a close relative to Fascism).
How is this modded insightful?
You seem to be using "facist" as a synonym for "totalitarian" or "authoritarian". There doesn't strike me as anything in the capitalist system that inexorably leads to specifically facism.
Free at last! Free at last! Thank god almighty we're free at last!
not.
Sounds if you thank one person for doing all the work. If that is what has actually happend (one person stopping the bill) then there is a LOT wrong with politics. More then we have already thought is wrong.
If one person could stop this bill, then one person could stop any bill, regardless if it is good or bad.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Although I do agree that the Democrats are remarkably conservative by world standards, the traditional meaning of the terms refers to seating position, which is determined (in most legislative bodies) by political party affiliation. Therefore, the Democrats are, by definition, left, regardless of how conservative their position on a given issue might be.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
How sad. You say "in Europe". You used to have your own country, now you're part of a collective led by unelected losers who are paid waaay too much.
They're lefties, but only because they want to take your money and spend it on something they consider worthwhile. Like their own salaries, and giving corporations more control.
All the political whining on Slashdot about SOPA/PIPA doesn't amount to a fart in a typhoon.
You're supposed to be a bunch of geeks, right -- with technical knowledge -- and presumably more technical skills than political skills/clout. The conversation here would get a *lot* more useful if it focused on how to move towards mesh networking / peer-to-peer connectivity. Yes, I know that's hard, but probably easier than winning against a corrupt political system. Mesh networking is the *only* long-term solution to the power brokers determined to leash the Net. How about starting a *useful* conversation here?
It won't see the president's desk yet.
Criminalization of copyright has been expanding since 1982. (Well, earlier, but at a slower pace before that.)
1890s - Congress criminalizes copyright violations of dramatic works by travelling street performers.
There were also changes in 1908, 1982, 1992 (software companies push for broader criminalization), 1997 (NET act), 1998 (DMCA), etc...
This is on the back-burner because of mobilized opposition. They'll carve out a compromise between the ISPs and Search providers on the one hand and big media on the other, and we'll get more complex legislation that has a similar effect inside of two years.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Wait, where did you find a web browser that doesn't have spellcheck?
Little appreciated here on Slashdot is the fact that SOPA was as unpopular on the right side of the spectrum as it was on the left.
I actually think slashdot and reddit (often accused of having a left-leaning bias) demonstrated restraint and were clear that this was not a partisan issue. That this was congressmen and women bought by the MPAA/RIAA against everyone else.
I know we disagree on many things, and it's tempting to believe that the other side is deluded. But it would have taken remarkable self-delusion for any liberal informed in the slightest to think this was a conservative movement. PIPA was sponsored by democrat Sen. Patrick Leahy. It was known from the beginning that Obama would probably sign it. The AFL-CIO was in favor of SOPA for some fucking reason. I don't recall reading any serious posts about "Aw, these fucking republicans trying to censor the internet."
Right and left both united to overcome censorship and special interests run amok. I don't think either side was really accusing the other side of being in favor of it. Please, lets not degenerate into declaring this a partisan victory now, and lets not start saying "See! Our side told your side so!"
Because it's America, where even an Anonymous race-baiting Cracker such as your own fine self can get elected to Federal office.
When I voted for Senator Anonymous, I did not realize that he or she was anti-semitic. I really liked his or her actions against scientology and corporate corruption, there wasn't a lot of information out there about their personal beliefs.
No, it's pretty correct. The demonizing of the poor by the right wing shows that they truly have that "fuck the poor" attitude.
Wow. "Demonizing of the poor"? You liked the kool-aid so much you bought the whole factory, eh?
It's not that they have a "different idea". It's that they are actively trying to parrot shit that absolutely does not work, and are trying to bring about outcomes that have no basis in reality.
And of course your opinion, as that's what it is, is the only valid one. That's a lot of hubris, and typical elitist-think. Sorry to disappoint you but a whole lot of people, a whole lot smarter & better-informed and educated than you, disagree with you.
They want to remove funding for scholarships used by poor people, yet still expect those people to be able to go to college.
Wanting college loans to be done the way they've been done for decades, and not taken over by a bloated government bureaucracy, is NOT "removing funding" or preventing people from going to school. Or do you prefer to have the IRS perform armed SWAT team raids on those behind on their government student loans as has already happened, rather than a collections letter from the local bank?
"Well, you should have worked harder. Then you could have made something of yourself." All the while conveniently forgetting that YOU were the result of the same aid you would seek to deny others.
What aid? My family and I were poor. I worked my way through school. I paid my own tuition, bought my own books, materials, etc. I sacrificed and ate a lot of ramen. I didn't own a car. I didn't have cable. Or internet. As a result I valued my educational opportunity and worked and studied very hard, as I earned it myself. And before you complain that today's tuitions have grown too expensive to do that, the schools have raised their tuitions because they know the government will pay.
Why do people like you refuse to see that marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a civil one? I can go down to the courthouse and get married, with absolutely no context of religion. How does that fit into your worldview that it's a religious institution.
Slavery was also a civil institution at one time. Slave owners registered their slaves down at the local courthouse. Just because something is or has been a "civil institution" is not a valid reason why it shouldn't be changed or abolished.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I'd put it differently - the End Game of Oligarchy is Genocide.
A saturated market is no more interesting to a Monopoly than a small market. They wish them out of existence.
Capitalism loves all markets, is ill equipped to handle Road Kill, but does not wish extinction on anybody or anything.
Nice plan but how do you propose to implement any of it? Are you counting on universal acceptance without protests? Are you willing to use violence to achieve these changes? Are you willing to risk anarchy to accomplish changes?
And as far as foreign military bases are concerned all the host countries can ask the US to leave anytime they want. It's their decision. The US has always complied with a host countries request to leave. I wish all the bases were closed. The US is more than capable of projecting it's power globally if necessary. Of course all host countries will have to actually defend themselves without any assistance from the US. The host countries will have to deal with the loss of jobs in the base locations but that is their problem. And quite frankly I am not sure there is a single country the US should provide hands on military support to. They can buy all the weapons they need from the US but they will be responsible for actually using them. If some country makes an appeal for US military assistance it should expect a bill with at least half due upfront before they get the help they are requesting.
Really? I thought Occupy had a pretty solid set of grievances to be redressed: http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
Cool system, I want to see a libertarian communist party
Wow. "Demonizing of the poor"? You liked the kool-aid so much you bought the whole factory, eh?
That's the only phrase that can be used when you hear most of these people talk. You can try to ridicule me all you want, but what I'm saying is true.
And of course your opinion, as that's what it is, is the only valid one. That's a lot of hubris, and typical elitist-think. Sorry to disappoint you but a whole lot of people, a whole lot smarter & better-informed and educated than you, disagree with you.
Never said mine was the only valid one. However, I'm not the one who's trying to justify a bunch of opinions that have already been disproven. And no, any economist who follows the Austrian school actually counts for this.
And the rest of your "I was poor, but I did it all by myself!" is absolute bullshit. You honestly have no idea to what extent you were helped by others, that you refuse to see it plainly in front of your face.
Slavery was also a civil institution at one time. Slave owners registered their slaves down at the local courthouse. Just because something is or has been a "civil institution" is not a valid reason why it shouldn't be changed or abolished.
That is quite frankly the most asinine opinion regarding the topic I have ever read. Bravo. You have reinforced the idea that I should not feed the trolls.
Probably should add that was not sarcasm.
There doesn't strike me as anything in the capitalist system that inexorably leads to specifically facism.
And there's nothing in a socialist system that inexorably leads to fascism either. That didn't stop the post I replied to from making that connection.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing in Capitalism that would actually stop the monopolies from forming.
If one person could stop this bill, then one person could stop any bill, regardless if it is good or bad.
You mean like the President?
"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings... and I hate people like that!"
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This is not the result I was hoping for, for SOPA to kill the house, but I'll take what I can get.
look at Rupert Murdoch's statement on the 14th of January about google and piracy. They are hitting harder than ever. They won't stop until they destroy everything and we are all watching television again, or have their bullshit "information superhighway" garbage they were trying to pull before the internet was released to the public. just a fucking shopping mall instead of the internet. they are fucking afraid, I don't think they know who they are dealing with.
Please don't let them kill Pippa (Middleton)! I love her, man!
The way to make sure this kind of law does not rise from the dead like a zombie in a bad horror movie is to punish the lawmakers who co-sponsored it. If you live in a state or district where your congressman/senator put his name on the respective bills (SOPA or PIPA), write them and tell them you will support/campaign for/contribute to their opponent, even if the bills are dead, just because they were stupid enough to ever think it was a good idea and put their name to it.
If there is one thing they fear more than their desire for campaign funds, it's getting voted out of office. So make this a "vote you out of office" issue, so the next time the entertainment industry comes knocking (and they will), the legislator will tell them to go away.
On the other hand, if you happen to live where your representative was opposed to the bill, thank them for doing it, and tell them you will to everything you can to support them in the next election.
To some degree, it does not matter if you actually do work for their opponent or them or the other stuff, cause likely some staffer will just tally your opinion in a spreadsheet, but you want to show up in the column of "very strongly against" the next time this shows up. They do pay attention to the aggregate opinions.
Numbered Swiss accounts are so last century for dodging taxes. The #1 rated tax haven is the "City of London", what the rest of the world thinks of as their financial district, not the much larger metropolis. According to Wikipedia:
"The City of London Corporation has been criticized for being undemocratic and a privileged haven for banks, financial institutions and big businesses....The City has come under criticism for the determining role of business votes over the residential vote: businesses in the City have around 24,000 votes, dwarfing the residents' 8,000 votes.[8] Tax justice campaigner Nicholas Shaxson said: "Voting would reflect the wishes not of the City's 300,000 workers, but of corporate managements. So Goldman Sachs and the People's Bank of China ('sic') would get to vote".[18] Journalist George Monbiot complained: "It's not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who "appoint" the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple."
There is only one "rich and powerful" class, the members are interchangeable between government and business. The average net worth of all top federal officials (executive, judicial, and legislative) is $6.5 million. Mayor Bloomberg is an example of a crossover, being both a multibillionaire, and politician, Romney, whose father was Governor of Michigan, got his start in Wall Street due to political connections, and then returned to politics with a net worth in the hundreds of millions.
So time to get over the idea of corporations vs government, and Democrat vs Republican, it's really "rich and powerful" vs "everyone else".
Britain needs London to stay a haven for banks and financial institutions for their economy to survive. After all, they don't make anything in Britain any more, so what else are they going to base their economy on? At least we Americans still make a lot of airplanes, military hardware, and industrial equipment as well as tons of coal and corn. The British don't have any manufacturing left, except for a few ultra-low-volume cars, nor any natural resources.
That is the most succint and accurate statement I've heard over the entire life of SOPA and PIPA. Cheers. Glad you've been modded high.
If there is one thing they fear more than their desire for campaign funds, it's getting voted out of office.
Unfortunately, they aren't as afraid of that as you would like to believe.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Everyone helping elect someone else from his district (I mean everyone, all around the world), would send a message that this topic (messing with the Internet), is a toxic death sentence for a politician who supports it. Kicking him out would be a great object lesson for the rest of the politicians.
Wait, where did you find a web browser that doesn't have spellcheck?
It's some new shit called 'Mosaic'.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Also, they didn't want it took look like a Democrat saved the Internet.
They should know how to save it. After all, it was a Democratic senator who invented it!
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
A President who regards himself above all ethics, laws and morals.
A President who derides all the laws of his country, the USA, and even the Rights of Prisioners of War.
A President who demands HE is the renderer, the torturer, the executioner.
A President who says "I am God!"
And a Congress all too happy to call FBI and DHS to inform them of a credible threat to "National Security" thus absolving themselves of their own culpibility to have whomever called thern to voice concern about these bills in Congress, now to be ... rendered, tortured and killed in the delight and entitlement of and enjoyment of the President of the United States of America.
I will vote for Cantor (he's my district's rep.) What a saint; what a savior.
Left wing is not anti-authoritarian any more than right wing is authoritarian.
Counter-points: Barack Obama & the nationalization of the automotive industry; Ron Paul as an anti-authoritarian on the far right.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Democrats have moved so far to the right!?! My god by what measure? If they moved any further to the left they'd fly right past Hugo Chavez and Bill Ayers.
This is why I cringe to read the comment sections here sometimes, its like I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up at the Daily Kos. Republicans give handouts to corporations. Maybe true sure like all politicians angling for support. But Democrats give handouts to corporate welfare AND social welfare, all with other peoples money. How compassionate of them.
--(the rest of my comment is more directed as some of the commentors above you but I don't feel like making another post.)--
Obama in 2008 was favored by elites in all places of power and especially w/ big money power brokers like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. He put together a never before seen 745 million nest egg during his run for office! Didn't he also say he would take the public fund matching agreement if McCain would to make sure the election was fair. If I remember correctly he lied about that when he realized how corporations preferred him over McCain. McCain: 370 million. "Because McCain opted into the public financing system during the general election, he faced an $84 million limit on what he could spend, putting him at a huge disadvantage compared to Obama, who raised $66 million more than that in September alone. Although McCain lost the race, he came a long way from the early days of the campaign, when he appeared to be nearly broke." http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
Obama's 2 biggest contributors from 2008 by sector and top 6 donors by business/organization: Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $42,047,073 & Lawyers & Lobbyists $46,037,111. University of California - $1,648,685, Goldman Sachs - $1,013,091, Harvard University -$878,164, Microsoft Corp - $852,167, Google Inc - $814,540, JP Morgan Chase & Co - $808,799, Citigroup Inc - $736,771
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Obama for 2012 has already rallied his 1%'ers en masse yet again to keep them in power raising over double what his next closest opponent raised thus far. Obama: 86 million Romney: 32 million.
When people seriously proclaim that the Republicans are the ones who are hooked up with the rich and the Democrats are for the middle class IMO are misinformed at best. There are 40% more people on food stamps now than when Obama took office, some 40 - 43 million people. Along with that is the unemployment rate for black men rising to (and fluctuating between) a frightening 16 - 20%. The unemployment gap between black and white Americans is higher then it has EVER been w/ approx. a 9% difference under Obama! (Under Bush it fluctuated but went as high as 4.9%).
Although I will grant you that the Dem's are better at the media relations game and using propaganda tailored towards the middle/lower class.
and MORE Democrats are in favor of an authoritarian government. The American progressives in the 20th century (predecessors of modern liberals) were about as authoritarian as you get.
Look at the ones who want to tell you can't eat trans-fats, where and if you can smoke cigarettes, you don't have a choice whether to buy health insurance since big brother knows better then you, you can not exercise your second amendment rights anymore, you should be capped at the amount of personal wealth you can earn, etc, etc.
Where the Dem's are right is in the area of social freedom. How Republicans or conservatives can say they are advocates for people being left alone by a limited Government and at the same time talk about how the state should outlaw marriage for gays. To a lesser extent is the abortion issue which I would not be personally advocate performing (adoption seems worthy to consider) but unless its a partial birth situation where you have a viable child and not a fetus it should be up to the mother what she can do with her body. It should be up to the mother and her Doctor not the Government if it is appropriate to continue the pregnancy IMO. As icky as it may be unless the Government is going to start monitoring all women of child bearing age they cannot stop them. The only thing totally outlawing abortion would do for certain is drive the practice underground where there would be no records and no regulation.
Well said. Definitely in agreement with this. While we are afraid of socialism as being the death of individialism, freedom and creativity, we forget that our capitalism has gotten out of hand towards corporatism where we lose freedom, and get treated like expendable consuming machines. There must be possibility landing somewhere in the middle, or completely somewhere else out of that mess.
That is quite frankly the most asinine opinion regarding the topic I have ever read.
----- /. liberal/Progressive translation routine, please standby...
Performing
Parsing...
OK, done.
-----
Yes, it DID destroy your argument quite thoroughly, didn't it? :D
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
True. And what we call communists in the Nordics would probably be called the Evil Empire in the States. The biggest problem with comparing the left-right axis in Europe and the States is that in the US it is often linked to the religious axis. Which we (luckily in my opinion) mainly lack.
What your OP was saying is that "both sides" are rightwing in the USA political scene.
What happens if one house passes a bill and the other house does not pass an equivalent bill? This always seemed like the more logical way to handle things (one house passes a bill, then the other house takes that bill and votes on it/amends it), but I'm not sure how it's actually done in practice. If PIPA passes, does the House take it and start over from there?
Is Obama supposed to Veto this just like the NDAA? That's right, he said he was going to veto to win public support, but changed his mind to get support from the corporate pigs.
https://www.facebook.com/questions/234853363255476/?qa_ref=qd
No, it didn't. It just showed that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. "Slavery was once a civic institution, so because of that, gay marriage should not be allowed." Honestly? You have no argument for why gay marriage should not be allowed and you know it. You simply do not want gay people to get married. As long as straight marriage is recognized by the government, you cannot give any reason whatsoever for why gay marriage should not be, can you?
1). I simply said it was an authoritarian bill. I didn't say it was left wing or right wing.
2). "Nationalization of the auto industry" (even though that's not what happened) is not an authoritarian move.
3). Ron Paul is completely fine with authoritarianism. He just has a stick up his ass as to which level of government it occurs on. He was in favor of Texas banning sodomy; how is that not authoritarian?
We're just substituting SOPA for PIPA and are still on for the 18th.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
I'm from Austin and the few friends I do have that are politically aware are in step with you. Unfortunately, the stereotypical Austin Slacker and Austin Hipster only became stereotypes because of their abundance. About 11-18 percent of this city votes on local issues and that's only if the word "bike lanes" is included in the legislation. You can almost double those numbets for national elections. Apathy is rampant here and the only political discussions you hear is on Jeff Ward's talk show or in the coffee houses. Most everyone else is too enthralled with being weird.
Now bring medicinal pot up for a vote and they'll damn near knock the polling doors off. Other than that, most are still dream-shopping for their BMW or squatting on open wireless connections at Starbucks.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
social libertarianism makes it easier and less risky to move their product. Giving the disadvantaged a fish is not a "left-wing" cause. It's noblesse oblige.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
The Democratic Party is a center-right party. Try again.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
That's more skulduggery than it's worth. Just "not-promise" them a $600k/yr lobbying gig. It worked for Dodd, and it's going to work for that treasonous fuck Lieberman.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
My favorite Jello Biafra quote: "It's not left vs. right, it's top vs. bottom."
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
No, there is left-wing corporatism. Have you ever asked yourself what the hell kind of logical connection there is between employment and social benefits like health care or pensions? A friend's father, who is firmly in the top 10%, drank deep of the Murdoch Kool-Aid and actually thinks that the ridiculous inequalities of wealth and living conditions in Brazil are all right by him, didn't want any sort of socialized health care because he wants to be able to do nice things for his employees.
The end game of capitalism is feudalism.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Americans are so pathological that their fucking identities seem to depend on subjugating themselves to someone richer.
What's up with that? Civilized countries have fine social safety nets. Being "jobless" isn't a catastrophe there because their people generally haven't had every last bit of humanity in their lives commodified and sold back to them.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Hey Guys, I know its kinda like it never should have been brought up in the first place, but now its time to let Cantor know that he did the right thing by shelving it, and encourage him to NEVER bring it up again.
Only on slashdot would posting a nobel-prize winning economists view on socialism be labeled as a troll and flamebait. All I can say is: read the book and see if its not persuasive.
In any case, I do think it would be pretty hard to argue that true laissez faire (and its implied individualism) capitalism leads to tyranny. I think if you read Isaiah Berlin's two concepts of liberty he also makes a very good philosophical argument for why "positive liberties" embodied by socialism will in fact lead to tyranny.
That was true 10 years ago. The left in Europe either went to the center right as well or just went on full corruption mode (aside from the smaller parties). There is still no-one on the left presenting a solution to maintain the Euro as we're nearing the point were it no longer matters.
Someone in the USA needs to post a list of the supporters names.