CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'

SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as 'turbulence on the way down to landing.' From the article: "What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable -- is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he's been working with tech companies to make sure they're okay with the bill. And while that's a start, it's no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government. But to then call the protests mere 'turbulence' is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated."

Comments

Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people. He's been working with CORPORATIONS to make sure that CORPORATIONS don't have any problem with the LEGISLATION that is put upon THE CITIZENS.

As for the opinion of CITIZENS? -- Who gives a fuck?

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyday that passes our rights become further eroded. How much longer until citizens just go into open revolt and demand their elected officials be put to the wall?

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations make donations while citizens just whine and bitch. He knows who butters his bread.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

When are you going to go into open revolt? Drumming on a plastic bucket and chanting, "Down with the 1%!" doesn't count. Armed resistance is what makes a revolution. Man up or shut the fuck up.

Re:Constituants.

[jamstar7]

For a revolution in the US, you need 2 things.

1. Everybody needs to go a day without eating.
2. Shut off the internet & the cable tv.

You'll have a new government in place in the morning.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.

Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.

Re:Constituants.

[s-whs]

A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.

People in the USA have had bizarre extremists and arseholes in government for a long time. See George Wanker Bush and his fellow sociopaths like Condeleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.

It can't get any worse than what those a-holes did which helped destabilize the economy and with the war they started, the world around Iraq.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

G. Dubya Bush is what you get from a democracy that has gone bad.

Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.

Re:Constituants.

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

The corporations are the primary source of the politicians campaign contributions, contributions that allow the politicians to continue on the gravy train. As such, do you really expect them not to look out for the best interests of said corporations first?

Re:Constituants.

[Thanshin]

So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people.

What's bizarre at this point is how is it possible that so many people don't already understand that. I think it's sufficiently clear that the government is not a tool for the people and that democracy doesn't allow changing that.

Protests have no effect. Votes have no effect. Terrorism has no effect. This is capitalism, only money has an effect. If you don't have large amounts of money, you are a production machine and your opinion matters as much as that of a cow.

The only way of stopping the absolute power of money in capitalism is revolution. Anything else is fruitless crying.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny that, #1 is well on its way to completion if you look at the some of the poorest neighborhoods.

Re:Constituants.

[AK Marc]

Lenin and Washington were from revolutions as well. Hitler was elected into power. Well, Washington was elected into power, but based at least partly on his performance in the revolution.

Re:Constituants.

[flyneye]

I'm surprise he didn't say " Let them eat cake"
But then the angry mob will probably be carrying rubber hose and pepper spray instead of pitchforks and torches.
History repeats but it paraphrases.

Re:Constituants.

[flyneye]

I don't see any protesters doing anything but taking up peaceful space.
They won't be noticed by anyone but the press until there is some fire, blood and people defecating openly on Wall st.
Silly hippies, I really think they just attend so they say they have and they can impress that one guy/girl enough to rub special places with them. They're really about as threatening and effective as "Hello Kitty".

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new around here. It's been extreme lying socialist sphincter Repubmocrats for well over a century now.
Can't get any worse....w00t!
Stick around 5 minutes.

Re:Constituants.

[flyneye]

If you have democracy, it has doubtless gone bad.

The current world state of affairs is what you get from democracy.

Funny, both Mao and Napoleon are dead and are old enough to be poor examples.

We could use Clinton and Chavez with more effect.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Revolution means the utter failure of the current system. It's a last resort when you have nothing to lose, because you're taking a HUGE risk that things will turn out 10x worse. You're far better to invest some time and effort into fixing the current system rather than failing to vote or not being involved in politics enough to influence anything. Write those letters. Make your view heard. Use the tools you have *within* the system. Yes, it's screwed up and it's hard to believe we ordinary citizens can make a difference, but where's SOPA now?

I get the feeling that some people would rather sit around on their lazy arse until the government truly is a serious disaster, then they'd be happy to shoot up the place, go home, and then assume it will all be magically better. No, probably not. Did it work that way during any other civil war in the world? Heck no. It's a total crap shoot. Worse, if most people cared so little before the crisis to do something to prevent impending disaster, they certainly aren't going to be able to guarantee things will be any better after the crisis. Revolutions can go bad. Really, really, really BAD.

Pressing the "revolution" button is rather like pressing the big "nuclear" button during the Cold War. You really don't want to go there if it is in any way avoidable.

So, get off your political ass and be involved rather than saying "I'll be involved once they start shooting."

Re:Constituants.

[Nidi62]

Lenin and Washington were from revolutions as well. Hitler was elected into power. Well, Washington was elected into power, but based at least partly on his performance in the revolution.

But Washington was also elected into the Revolution. He did offer his services, but he was also elected by the Continental Congress to lead the Continental Army. Prior to that, his one and only significant military action was in the French and Indian War, and resulted in him surrendering.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely!

If you are prepared to imagine yourself as a heroic revolutionary, fighting, maybe even putting your life at risk, for the cause of the new whatever, then you had damn well be willing to fight at least that hard within the system beforehand.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really find it hard to imagine a Mao-like revolutionary leader in the US? Sure, they would be very unlikely to be carrying a communist banner, but some aspects of his thinking carry over very well.

"You worked for the government? Then you die."
"But I was just a primary school teacher!"
"Socialist! Indoctrinator! You make the children dependent on the state! Die, scum."

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

So... No bread and no circuses?

Re:Constituants.

[lwriemen]

They're working on a new freedom, so government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Everybody needs to go a day without eating.
2. Shut off the internet & the cable tv.

Yeah! That is working so well in Palestine.

It's early days, but I doubt 80 years of terrorism and murder (committed by the Israelis too) will end because everyone ignored the TV for a measly 24 hours.

Re:Constituants.

[guises]

Mao is too old to be relevant? He only died in '76, that's not that long ago.

Clinton and Chavez are better examples of what you get from a revolution? Did you think this through? They were both elected. Chavez staged a failed coup, but was democratically elected afterwards.

Why was this modded up?

Re:Constituants.

[demachina]

"you'll get some unstable maniac in charge. . . those willing to kill"

Yea we sure need to avoid letting anyone grab power who might:

A. Execute people, including U.S. citizens, women and children, without a trial, like with UAV's and Hellfire missiles
B. Torture people
C. Lock people up indefinitely without a trail
D. Snatch people all over the world, put black bags over their heads, drug them, and render them to various dictatorships for indefinite detention and torture, and occasionally snatch the wrong people, oops
E. Start long, expensive wars under false pretenses, that kills hundreds of thousands of people and bankrupt the U.S.
F. Engage in massive electronic spying on citizens without a warrant or court oversight

Yep, we definitely don't want any wild eyed revolutionaries grabbing power and doing that shit .

Re:Constituants.

[Isaac Remuant]

I'd think that Obama was a better example of the failures of apparent democracy.

His photo appears in the dictionary when you look for charisma or oratory but he ran on a platform of opposition to most of the things than by the "Other Party" and ended up maintaining very much the same policies in large scale (expanding many of those concerning civil liberties and foreign policy).

You had this option to oppose what Bush did. It said it would do things differently (in very specific terms). Once elected, it didn't.

Democracy doesn't work because we've developed the science of propaganda to a point where the amount of money you have is directly related to the odds of winning an election.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason they have bread and circus, so that 1 & 2 never happen.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was elected into power.

Hitler was a high-level bureaucrat. He wheeled-and-dealed his way to the top job. And the SS increased his power over the people. Napoleon Bonaparte, then JV Stalin used that tactic prior to Hitler.

Napoleon arrived after the French revolution and was a minor dictator, in that the number of dissidents he 'disappeared' was quite small (Josephine was a dissident scheduled to 'disappear' but became his vigorous lover), until he declared war on Catholicism.

JV Stalin and Mao Zedong were classical dictators: As soon as the educated/wealthy disagreed, they were murdered.

Washington admitted they fought 'dirty' to win the revolution. What it cost in human lives has not been appraised.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy.

I guess you haven't seen the GOP lately.

Re:Constituants.

[Rumtis]

Personally, I think him making these comments are a good thing. Bear with me a sec....
A politician putting a comment out like this serves one purpose: He's testing the public to see how much backlash is still out there if the bill (and remember, it's still a bill at this point) was to get brought forth once again. Do people care anymore?
Now, I say making these comments is a good thing because it is keeps the issue hot to the public at large. We are reminded that we need to stand up and say "NO!" everytime they want to pass this type of bill.

Politicans can be bought by the corporation as long as there is apathy from the population at large. SOPA/CISPA backlash hit critical mass and the politicians backed down. I say keep bringing up this bill to kep that critical mass opposition hot.

Re:Constituants.

[Hatta]

Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.

This is true. But the threat of revolution is the only leverage we have left anymore. If you want to avoid a revolution, we need to reform the system. Anyone who is not serious about reform is pro-revolution.

Re:Constituants.

[DigiShaman]

History begins the moment you're born. In other words, historical perspective varies from person to person.

Re:Constituants.

[SchMoops]

In other breaking news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. This has been Weekend Update with Chevy Chase.

Re:Constituants.

[Jawnn]

G. Dubya Bush is what you get from a democracy that has gone bad.

Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.

...or Washington or Jefferson. So your point would be...?

Re:Constituants.

[Brian Feldman]

I am sorry, but you must one day shatter your delusion that entrenched fascism can be removed by chipping away at it.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you get the French Reign of Terror after the revolution, with Napoleon a full decade down the road.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your answer says it all. No arms => no resistance. Now to some gun control.

Re:Constituants.

[Brian Feldman]

But crying makes me feel like I'm doing something! That's enough, right? I don't need to actively plan for revolution, right?! The good guys will win out over fascism!!

Re:Constituants.

[guises]

What? Historical perspective is all well and good, but history doesn't change from person to person. I don't think I'm following this conversation anymore.

Clinton and Chavez are not good examples of leaders which came to power after revolutions because they did not come to power after revolutions. That's all there is to it. Don't get all metaphysical on me, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now there was a real man! He told Stalin and Hitler both to fuck off.
And no, I'm not talking about Chevy Chase.

Re:Constituants.

[Caratted]

Once elected, it didn't.

...Well, there is this whole two term in a bipartisan country problem to deal with.

Let us see what happens in the next 4 before we shout "complete failure," shall we?

Besides the fact that he doesn't actually write the legislature itself, just submits ideas and vetoes.

Re:Constituants.

[mcgrew]

You kids are cute in your ignorance. My generation never got violent (hell, we were all stoned on reefer) but our protests got the Vietnam war stopped, we got the draft stopped, we got the EPA instituted, we got equal rights for black people, and the only violence done was done to us.

You kids need to put that cocaine down and smoke a joint. As the Salvor hardin said in Asimov's Foundation, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Re:Constituants.

[jedidiah]

80 years of terrorism is pretty impressive for a country that hasn't even been around that long.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... the only violence done was done to us."

They say smoking pot damages memory, and in your case it seems true.

I guess you don't remember the Weather Underground, or the Black Panthers.

I was there too, and I wasn't stoned. You have a selective memory which is quite inaccurate.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

My generation never got violent ...we got equal rights for black people...

Now THAT'S funny! equal rights for black people?! We don't even got equal rights amongst white people. Whose fuckin' Kool aid are you drinkin'? We ain't got nuthin'. Big money got all those things.. including peace with 'honor'. Sheesh! The naivete is astounding.

Re:Constituants.

[lightknight]

Then the question is "Is having an unstable maniac in charge a better option that what we currently have available?"

The day draws closer when the answer is, sadly, yes.

Re:Constituants.

[mcgrew]

Trust me, whenever you think things can't possibly get any worse, they always do.

Re:Constituants.

[lightknight]

*shrugs* He must be planning not to run for office next election. It happens.

Re:Constituants.

[spooje]

True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted. What happened with that?

• - continued the Bush bailout policy

• - stayed in the Bush started wars, later started new ones

• - continued Bush violations of civil rights, and started new programs to curtail rights

• - continued Bush's tactic of screaming terrorist to take away those rights

• - continued torture and "secret" prisons started under bush

• - not only took no steps to reduce the deficit but ramped it up.

So the upside of Bush's 3rd term has been?

Re:Constituants.

[kilfarsnar]

Democracy doesn't work because we've developed the science of propaganda to a point where the amount of money you have is directly related to the odds of winning an election.

Here it is! Bam!

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

My generation never got violent

False.

but our protests got the Vietnam war stopped

False.

we got the draft stopped

False.

we got the EPA instituted

Eh, in part.

we got equal rights for black people

Pretty broad definition of 'we' now.

the only violence done was done to us.

False.

Re:Constituants.

[SomePgmr]

I think he was suggesting them as more recent examples of each, for purposes of contrast... not that Clinton was the product of revolution.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Protests have no effect. Votes have no effect. Terrorism has no effect. This is capitalism, only money has an effect. If you don't have large amounts of money, you are a production machine and your opinion matters as much as that of a cow.

The only way of stopping the absolute power of money in capitalism is revolution. Anything else is fruitless crying.

I disagree. SOPA and PIPA were effectively killed due to public outcry. The issue at hand is who has more endurance: the public to continuously reject these types of bills or the people that keep introducing them.

Re:Constituants.

[cayenne8]

I really think they just attend so they say they have and they can impress that one guy/girl enough to rub special places with them.

Hey...you gotta do what it takes to get laid.

;)

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now there was a real man! He told Stalin and Hitler both to fuck off."

Umm....no. Franco begged Hitler and Mussolini for help during the Spanish Civil War and received it: planes, tanks, small arms, and even boots on the ground troops plus support from their navies. One of Pablo Picasso's most famous paintings is of the bombing of Guernica: carried out by the Condor Legion (planes, men, and bombs all supplied by Nazi Germany) bombing the city in an early (and infamous) instance of carpet bombing a civilian target for strategic purposes. Later, during the early years of World War II, Franco desperately tried to join Hitler and Mussolini and was rebuffed due to Spain's inability to provide supplies to its troops. Franco did grant use of Spanish naval facilities to Hitler, and encouraged men to volunteer for the "Blue Division" which aided the Nazis fighting the Soviet Union. Ultimately 47,000 Spanish troops went to the Eastern Front, not being withdrawn until late 1943. Even then a few thousand remained with most joining the Waffen-SS until the majority of them were recalled in 1944.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on most counts, save one.

This is NOT capitalism, it is FASCISM. We haven't had capitalism since corporations were incorrectly classified as "persons." That decision, coupled with the New Deal and the Federal Reserve are what has led to today's fascist structure.

It's 100% fascist.

Re:Constituants.

[StikyPad]

Ok, I'll bite. What form of government should be implemented after said revolution? As Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

Not to mention your logic is circular. Either you have a majority of people willing to support a revolution, and thus could vote in the change they want peaceably, or else you have an armed minority enforcing their will on the majority. How is that better? Because you say so?

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes

No change there, then.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted.

six months

What happened with that?

Basically, the Affordable Care Act, which the Right has tried to obstruct every step of the way. (Actually, they've tried to obstruct Obama himself and everything associated with him since inauguration, and haven't been shy about their intent to do that.)

Re:Constituants.

[StikyPad]

Washington was also shy of the spotlight. Reluctant leaders are often the best kind.

I think that's probably where democracy got lost. When leaders are nominated by the people who know them, rather than "throwing their name in the hat," you tend to get people who are worthy of the position. When you have people nominating themselves, you get self-aggrandizing assholes. I'm not sure how to make the former work on a large scale that doesn't require campaigning though, which is nothing if not self-aggrandizing, and certainly not in a way that can't be gamed.

Re:Constituants.

[JDG1980]

Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.

Napoleon wasn't actually that bad a ruler.

Re:Constituants.

[StikyPad]

I'm disappointed in Obama as well, but referring to him as "it" is a little over the top. Dehumanizing the people you disagree with is the root of many of our problems.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party...

The Democrats had a majority, they had nothing close to a super majority in either the House or the Senate.

Re:Constituants.

[DigiShaman]

Correct. I'm simply illustrating that while there are historical facts, people's perception would state otherwise. That whole mantra of learning history to never repeat past mistakes? Ya well, we still repeat them regardless. You could say people are rather stupid than ignorant. You could also say that it's really human nature that's unwavering. It's one or the other, or perhaps both.

Re:Constituants.

[luther349]

wheres sopa back again with a new name lol. and that's what there going to keep doing untill it passes.

Re:Constituants.

[AK Marc]

Stalin didn't. He used networking, but wasn't "elected" by the people. He was elected by a committee though. Lenin wasn't. He was the leader. He wasn't "bad" other than the US had to think so because he was different. Stalin wasn't brought into power by a revolution (though obviously if there hadn't been one, he wouldn't have been in power), so he's not applicable to this. That was my initial point.

Re:Constituants.

[mxbradley]

Yeah, we already tried this experiment...and ended up with Obama. LOLz

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh... Hitler was not elected. He was appointed.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about a form of government, it's about changing the economic model so that the government isn't so easily corruptable.

The more equal people are socio-economically the more possible a functioning democracy is.

Re:Constituants.

[Isaac Remuant]

I wasn't trying to dehumanize anyone. It probably got it mixed up thinking about the party (it) and the whole election mechanism.

If I said "he" instead, I fear someone would find a reason to tell me I'm the root of all our problems because I focus on Obama as a person when there's a whole party out there.

Addressing semantics and deriving negative intentions from them is useless. You can always do it.

Re:Constituants.

[Isaac Remuant]

Even if you believe that, the end result is that you don't get what you were promised (and a continuation of the previous policies).

I'm not wondering WHY it didn't happen, I'm just saying it didn't. People who elected him were not adequately represented and this is an example of it.

anyway, I don't see any reason to get your hopes up either. Skepticism and history analysis has always been a healthy attitude.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit late for replies to be seen, but I'll chat with you. :)

Ok, I'll bite. What form of government should be implemented after said revolution? As Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

First the main problem is not the form of government (democracy) but the economical model (capitalism).

However, democracy can be improved without abandoning it. Imposing better controls on what can the governing powers do. Improving the means of evolving the constitution and giving it more strength.

Not to mention your logic is circular. Either you have a majority of people willing to support a revolution, and thus could vote in the change they want peaceably, or else you have an armed minority enforcing their will on the majority. How is that better? Because you say so?

A majority of people is still a minority of wealth. As long as money takes the decisions, we're in a plutocracy.

Our current democratic configuration doesn't allow the simple result of elections to modify the configuration itself.

The advantage of a revolution when fighting a plutocracy is that it's cheap.

The enforced change is not necessarilly better, but it represents a larger segment of the population.

Re:Constituants.

[centre21]

You aging hippies are so adorable, it's a good thing you're all headed to the nursing home.
I can't believe the naivete you express here - your PROTESTS got the Vietnam War stopped, et al?
Trust me, your protests are the subject of ridicule by people of my generation. "Love-Ins" "Sit-Ins" and all the rest were nothing more than an amusing aberration, but they had no real value. The actual reason that these changes were made was that it was simply not cost-effective to NOT implement them. Hippies didn't make changes, slick Harvard lawyers and economists did.

"Change does not happen by force, but over time, through advancements in science, education, economics and technology." - me.

Re:Constituants.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Weather Underground and the Panthers were effective only because they gave the FBI someone to attack and try to catch, prosecute and put in prison while the rest of us made the changes. It is a useful point (that we did have a violent and explosive arm to the revolution) but those groups were small and mostly for the shock and attention grabbing value. The real work was done on the street and in the open, by public masses of people who demanded change.

The Occupy movement could also succeed, but what I saw of it was just a bunch of mac-happy wannabees blogging and tumbling and msging about the important things they were doing. If you are not bringing in more people to make physical noise, if you are not moving those people both physically from place to place and emotionally to higher states of excitement and emotional investment then you are not going to effect change on the level needed.

As Marshall McLuhan said: "The medium is the massage"
It seems like the powers that be have realized that by getting everyone trapped in the "webs" of the media they have succeeded in "massaging" the people into a supine and inert mass of immobile hunks of flesh incapable of effecting change, incapable of reaching the emotional tipping point that can effect change.

They are winning because we are trapped by our toys. The Luddites, damn them, have a point.

Re:Constituants.

[flyneye]

The old Chinese junkies rule in the party ended long before he died.You might as well say Maos wife.
Ask the Clintons if their "election" wasn't a revolution or for that matter the hoard of fools who rode along with them.
If you reread the statement it's a comparative statement, would it suit your pedantic prissyness if I used Jobs?

Why were you modded up?

Re:Constituants.

[flyneye]

Lol , you stopped the war!
If Jane Fonda told you were gerbils, you'd take credit for generating green electricity from running in your hippie wheel.
We were smoking pot long before hippies, we'll be smoking pot long after you're transluscence gives way to vapor.

Without violence we wouldn't have Stooges. What kind of commiesisterloser has a problem with the Stooges?
Get a haircut and get a real job.

Re:Constituants.

[flyneye]

Now this smells more like the truth of the matter.

Re:Constituants.

[mcgrew]

Get a haircut and get a real job

My hair's short and I retire in 2 years. And, you did hear the George Thorogood song by that name, right?

You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Why... why didn't you vote for Ron Paul...

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

because his economic policies would result in widespread poverty

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone else's policies resulted in anything else?

Re:You only had to listen

[darthdavid]

Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...

Re:You only had to listen

[sjames]

Historically, Democratic presidents have closed the gap between rich and poor and overall increased income for the middle class It's too bad they've been becoming more Republican lately.

Re:You only had to listen

[Endovior]

Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now? Both clearly want the same thing; more spending, more debt, more rules. The only difference is what each side makes it's partisan points off of; Republicans like spending money on guns and subsidies to their rich backers, and Democrats like spending money on entitlements and subsidies to their special interest groups. Both sides like passing new laws that benefit whoever's bribed them, and neither likes tearing down laws, unless it's a specific law that's especially unpopular with their buddies. Neither likes going after the debt, since there's no political points to be made there; except in accusing the other side for not doing enough about it, and thus to attack the other side's spending preferences. Both sides are essentially doing the same thing, so the overall direction of things remains the same; the only 'change' is that whoever's winning at the moment can throw more tax money at their buddies.

Re:You only had to listen

[zephvark]

Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...

Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations. The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

The corporations don't strictly need a government/legal lever to enforce their appalling designs - they already have one (your employment). The corporations need to be counterbalanced through government and legislation to ensure they don't unfairly use that leverage.
What you are currently seeing is the legitimizing of corporations using their leverage through legislation. Take away the legislation and all you do is instantly legitimize things exactly like this.

Re:You only had to listen

[roman_mir]

And that tripe is moderated 'insightful'?

If he was even 1% correct, then the establishment wouldn't have to do everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination, and Ron Paul would win against Obama with his eyes closed.

Re:You only had to listen

[AK Marc]

No, the only difference is that Democrats (before Obama) would tax and spend. The Republicans would borrow and spend, while claiming to be more fiscally responsible.

Re:You only had to listen

[Serpents]

Free corporations of any government oversight and you have Cyberpunk 2020 - corporations become independent states with their own military and law enforcement agencies. Unlikely? Well, the SFPD has already been used as a private police force but that was at least questionable and a few people had some explaining to do. If corporations are accountable to no one you can be sure that they are going to take full advantage of that. Yes, the current system is broken and governments sit in deep pockets of their corporate sponsors but they have to do something from time to time to please the masses if they want to keep up the appearances of a democratic election process.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here specifically is an oppressive, overbearing government that works at the behest of a handful of corporate masters. We need a politician that will recognize the limitations of the governments power.

Re:You only had to listen

[WrongSizeGlass]

Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now?

There are differences, but none significant enough to determine which should be burned at the stake first. It looks like we'll just have to supply a bipartisan two stake solution.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the middle class is vanishing as well...

100% of nothing is still nothing..

Re:You only had to listen

[betterunixthanunix]

The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

So who do you think is going to take over the various services that are currently provided by the government, which people are not going to just part with? The very corporations whose power you think libertarianism will reduce. Do you really think that those corporations are going to have the best interests of the people in mind when they develop "industry standard" practices for disposing of toxic waste? Do you really think that corporations that do not have to go through the government, and can just do what they want, somehow have less power? Do corporations protect your privacy?

When it comes to the government, you are at least in a position to vote. You have little say over corporations; you can only vote if you buy the right to do so, and of course, rich people can buy a more significant vote. That is a fine way to govern a business, but a terrible way to give people access to a decent education, public transit to get to work, and so forth. Libertarianism is not utopia, it is just a shortcut to plutocracy.

Re:You only had to listen

[moeinvt]

Power and corruption are intimately linked. A government where 535 politicians can suck $2.2T out of the economy, borrow trillions more and pass sweeping laws (CISPA e.g.) which affect the lives of 330 million people will always be corrupt.

We should be electing libertarian candidates to federal office so that they can shrink the size and scope of this monstrosity in Washington D.C. and restore power to the states and the people where it belongs. Corporate influence will crumble and fragment if power and resources are restored to local and state governments.

You can have as much or as little government as you want, but if you want to keep it under the control of the citizens, it must be architected from the bottom up. Central planning and big top-down government are failed experiments.

Re:You only had to listen

[mcvos]

Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations.

And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Doing away with government altogether because the one you voted for is bad, will just result in a power vacuum that will be filled by a government that you didn't vote for.

Vote for a government that is your friend. That's what you need to be doing.

Re:You only had to listen

[Jawnn]

Because he's a thoroughly marginalized, radical, pretend libertarian, with well documented racist views? In other words, what sane person who values their vote as a tool for positive change would vote for such a man?

Re:You only had to listen

[Qzukk]

Both clearly want the same thing; more spending, more debt, more rules.

But one promises to vote the way I want on abortion, and that's all that really matters!

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Please point me to these well documented racist views. I keep hearing about this but have never seen any evidence.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was even 1% correct, then the establishment wouldn't have to do everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination, and Ron Paul would win against Obama with his eyes closed.

If Ron Paul is really that great, he'd win DESPITE all the attempts to prevent it

Accusing/blaming the establishment is just being a defeatist and a sore loser (should Paul lose, which is, unfortunate for you, how it looks like will turn out)

Re:You only had to listen

[rilian4]

An excellent question. The political machine on the left has brainwashed their constituency into thinking any non-Democrat vote means the end of the world...it's simply not true. Ron Paul would have made an excellent President and set this country back on the path to prosperity.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

This was in fact the case during the "glory days" of unregulated capitalism in the late 19th century.

Company towns were a good example:

At their peak there were more than 2,500 company towns, housing 3% of the US population.[1][2]

One of the first company towns in the United States was Pullman, Chicago, developed in the 1880s just outside the Chicago city limits. The town, entirely company-owned, provided housing, markets, a library, churches and entertainment for the 6,000 company employees and an equal number of dependents. Employees were required to live in Pullman, despite the fact that cheaper rentals could be found in nearby communities.

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

Private security forces are another example of private corporate tyranny:

One of the historical problems in labor disputes was the inability of existing police forces to deploy enough trained personnel to perform necessary responsibilities.[13] Corporations frequently turned to private agencies and guard services to fulfill their security needs. In 1866, a Pennsylvania law gave corporations the privilege of securing from the state government a commission for a watchman or policeman, who had the power to act on the corporation's property. The entity thus established was commonly referred to as the Coal and Iron Police.[14] In 1894, United States Marshals and special guards, together with state and federal troops, assisted in putting down the Pullman Strike.[1] In 1902, during the Anthracite strike, hundreds of commissions for the Coal and Iron Police were issued.[1]

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

Keep in mind this is the "utopia" which many libertarians idolize

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you paid any attention to Ron Paul's strategy in the past? He uses the door in the face technique, same as republicans: Come up with an insane set of ideas, and when people get scared he just backs down and says,"Well, ok. Let's just do these sets of things as a compromise" when really it was those sets of moderate ideas he was going for in the first place.

It's what the republicans are doing, and it works like a charm. Ron Paul is doing it and has done, and when he does it has affected some reasonably good change (like at the Fed).

Re:You only had to listen

[mcgrew]

Because I like to breathe without the air burning my lungs like it did before the EPA.

Re:You only had to listen

[kilfarsnar]

Has anyone else's policies resulted in anything else?

It's "have" any one else's policies, and yes they have. There was a brief period after WWII when the middle class grew, and income and prosperity were more widespread. It wasn't perfect by any means. But regulations and the tax structure, not to mention common decency, ensured that the productivity gains and profits were shared by a larger portion of the population. A blue collar worker could make enough money to buy a modest home and support a family.

But when the wealthy saw that their hold on society and its riches was slipping, they mounted a counter offensive. It started under Nixon, but really got going under Reagan. They have been pushing back against a more equal society ever since. That income and wealth inequality is as drastic as it is today is not an accident and did not happen by chance.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this 'before Obama' crap? The only notable change over the last 50 years is that the old dixiecrats moved over to the republican side and became the 'moral majority'. The system itself remains unchanged.

Re:You only had to listen

[Shotgun]

What complete and utter drivel. You Democrats really need to stop spreading this nonsense, as it really undermines what little credibility you have left. The US saw an extremely sharp rise in the standard of living after WWII, because the rest of the first world was a bombed out shambles. For years, the US was the only major power with the infrastructure and manufacturing capability to supply the needs of rebuilding Europe and Asia. This was a historical anomaly, not likely to be repeated, and totally outside the sphere of political control.

Re:You only had to listen

[Shotgun]

Without the government eating up 25% of my paycheck before I see it, maybe I'll be able to pay for those services myself?

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

bloated, corrupt, draining governmental agencies only mask, defer or redirect the reprecussions of any societal ill. they insulate you from the personal responsibilty that you bear.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, we'll see if the propaganda is victorious over the truth and if the masses are wise enough to question/notice the tactic and if so whether they have the gumption to investigate further. from my limited polling (asked a couple of people) it's a race against time. it's not whether they can keep the people fleeced forever that matters but whether they can successfully do it long enough to get their next puppet in office or their next oppresive/exploitative/treasonous law passed. the citizenry is somewhat passive aggressive. "they" think they can do things incrementally enough that they can round us up in increasing numbers over time, but at some point all the people in denial will wake up and they aren't going to appreciate the interuption of their slumber and we'll see who get's black bagged then.

Re:You only had to listen

[BlueStrat]

Vote for a government that is your friend. That's what you need to be doing.

[Larry the Cable Guy] Well, there's yer doggone problem, right there! [/Larry the Cable Guy]

There is NO SUCH THING as ANY government that is "your friend" no matter how it is structured or who is in it. Government is, AT BEST, a necessary evil. Government is nothing more nor less than force. Like fire, you only use just enough to get the job done, keep it tightly controlled and limited to prevent it's growth & spread, and to prevent it consuming all the surrounding resources (freedom, choice, and wealth, in the case of government, instead of forests/cities/homes with fire).

You also keep a means to kill it in it's tracks handy in case it gets out of control, and you do not hesitate to use it if needed.

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence...it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. - James Madison

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. - Thomas Jefferson

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the Spirit of Resistance. - Thomas Jefferson

That government is best which governs least. - Thomas Paine

Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. - John Adams

Americans need to re-commit themselves as a society to those principles that gave us freedom and liberty to start with. Such principles never change, and if forgotten, guarantee that loss of freedom & liberty will quickly follow. We see it playing out in the news every day.

Strat

Re:You only had to listen

[ultranova]

Without the government eating up 25% of my paycheck before I see it, maybe I'll be able to pay for those services myself?

Without the government busting cartels and monopolies I doubt it. Not to mention whoever owns the last mile of road to your house can charge you whatever he wants. As can whatever gang provides "protection" in your neighbourhood in the absence of police.

Re:You only had to listen

[AK Marc]

JFK and LBJ weren't afraid of taxes. Carter was ineffective as a president - too nice of a human to be a politician. Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget (depending on your definition of balanced). Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, as did Bushes, though "read my lips" did make new taxes, it wasn't even close to the increase in spending.

I can't argue for the parties, but I can look at the records of the presidents over that 50 years.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

All meaningless fairytales... It's really very sad to hear all of you people recite the same overdone memes over and over, word for word, it seems, like mindless robots.

Re:You only had to listen

[mcvos]

Even so, if you want freedom, you shouldn't just whitle down the government. That would leave the corporations unchecked and in a position to take more control. You some kind of collective of the people, basically a government, to keep them in check and protect the freedom of the people. If you want to tear down the government completely, you also need to tear down the corporations. Otherwise you end up with less freedom instead of more.

I fully agree that a government is a dangerous thing, and in an ideal world, you'd have as little of it as possible. But in a world dominated by corporations, you need something to balance them out. Reducing what little influence the people have, is not going to give them more freedom. That's why you need to take back control of the government. The situation is out of balance. You first need to bring that balance back. Throwing away your tools is not going to help you.

Re:You only had to listen

[BlueStrat]

Even so, if you want freedom, you shouldn't just whitle down the government. That would leave the corporations unchecked and in a position to take more control.

Smaller government =/= no government.

Dismantling the TSA or the Dept. of Education does not change SEC rules or Federal laws against illegal business & investment practices. If anything, reducing the size and eliminating the parts of the government that don't directly perform a basic and vital national function puts the people and parts of the government that's left (like the SEC and DoJ) in the spotlight with fewer distractions to draw attention away from illegal/corrupt practices and fewer chances to invoke a credible "plausible deniability" strategy to escape consequences for bad/corrupt/illegal/un-Constitutional actions and policies. It also leaves more money in the budget for investigators and investigations to actually enforce the laws and regulations as opposed to the lax and politically-selective enforcement we see these days.

The other thing that happens with a government like the US that's grown too large is "regulatory/legislative capture". You can see the kind of damage that does by simply looking at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and what was going on between the regulators and the companies they were charged to regulate.

The key is to distribute power as far down the chain from central government to state/local government as is practical for each instance of government power/control and keep as much as practically possible local as one can. The closer the power is to the populace it governs, the more accountable to the population and the more representative of their will it is.

It's always the central government that ends up in control of tyrannies because that's the levers to control the whole nation from one point of power. Therefor, the less power the central government has to begin with, the less tempting of a target for corruption it is to outside powers like large corporations and cabals, and the longer it will take and the harder it will be to reach intolerable levels of graft, tyranny, & corruption.

It is the nature of all government to grow and become more controlling, tyrannical, and intolerable, therefor one must do everything practical to create and maintain the smallest central government practically possible if one desires to delay as long as possible the time when government becomes too large, too tyrannical, and too corrupt, and domestic revolution/overthrow by the nation's citizens becomes the only option. That rarely turns out well.

Strat

Re:You only had to listen

[mcvos]

I think we agree.

I'm not entirely sure what the US Dept. of Education does wrong, but in general I agree that government needs to be decentralized and as close to the people as possible. There are many things for which national or even global agreements are necessary, but these should involve representation from lower levels, and not simple be forced from on-high. A bottom-up instead of a top-down approach.

But the end result is still that you need a government (both at more empowered local levels and at higher levels) that represents the people. The US is currently in a deadlock that prevents that.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, who needs breathable oxygen when we have Ayn Rand's hot air

Re:You only had to listen

[BlueStrat]

I think we agree.

Agreed! :)

I'm not entirely sure what the US Dept. of Education does wrong...

The DoE (along with the teacher's unions) is/are largely responsible for the success and high standards of the US public education system. (Do I really need to add a 'sarc' tag here?)

But the end result is still that you need a government (both at more empowered local levels and at higher levels) that represents the people. The US is currently in a deadlock that prevents that.

Agreed. (there I go again!)

Once you remove much of the power that the Federal government has seized over the last ~100 years and return it to the States and the people while stripping away the Federal deadwood that hides many of their shenanigans, much of the corruption will disappear because there's no reason to pay off or influence a politician that doesn't have the power to accomplish your goals, and especially when such activities are going to be exposed and visible with far fewer layers and branches of government bureaucracy to hide their corruption behind.

Strat

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up. The solution to most of these problems isn't centralized government or less government, it is pluriformity.

Re:You only had to listen

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the "political machine on the left" do that? The Democrats are not left, nor are they centrist.

Tech companies are ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about working with _the people_ to make sure they're okay with the bill?

Re:Tech companies are ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he? "The People" are clearly happy enough to elect him, and the average person will believe what the ads bought with the millions he will receive from the tech companies will tell them to believe...

Re:Tech companies are ok?

[betterunixthanunix]

Do you really think that letting the enemy decide these things is a good idea? The voters are the enemy according to the US government, in case you have not noticed.

Uh huh...

[Ignacio]

Since when has Rogers had ANY concern for anything other than their bottom line?

Re:Uh huh...

[wo1verin3]

Wrong Rogers.

"...that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA..."

Re:Uh huh...

[davester666]

Not wrong, just different. They both are unconcerned with what the general public think.

Re:Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not wrong, just different.

Actually, they're both wrong.

Telcom companies don't care about public opinion

[TheEyes]

Telcom companies don't care about public opinion. They don't have to; they've carved up the country into their own spheres of influence, much like Europe carved up China in the 19th century. If I want an internet connection to my house, I have exactly two choices, who offer suspicously similar pricing schemes. Regulators should be looking into this, but they won't because they're being paid too much money to look the other way.

He's correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Protest by the people don't matter anymore. The only reason SOPA was defeated is that large corporations got behind the protests. Without corporate backing, most (all) protests are too small to matter.

Same Shit, Different Day

[Transist]

It's incredibly frustrating that these 'sponsors' will continue to ram legislation down our collective throats such as this, when it clearly is against the general good and serves only private interests. Even if a bill such as SOPA gets defeated in the public spotlight thanks to major protest campaigning, it just shows up a couple months later under a different name. The tragedy is you can't get people interested in fighting 'the man' every week. I was very pleasantly surprised by the general outcry when SOPA was being pushed through, but I seriously doubt you can rally that kind of support every time these legislators bow to lobbying pressure and essentially copypasta their last draconian bill and rename it without any effort at all. How are you supposed to fight this kind of system (a term I generally avoid in this kind of context, but is rather fitting), when it's painfully obvious that the common man really has far too little say in government?

Re:Same Shit, Different Day

[usuallylost]

It has been my observation that is how it goes with every idea popular with the political class but unpopular with the public. They trot it out, the public gets upset, they table it. Then a few months later version two gets trotted out under a different name. Maybe the public notices maybe they don't. If not they pass it and we all realize after the fact when it is next to impossible to remove it. Or they go back and do the whole rebranding thing again. If that fails then the really dirty tricks come out. In the past we have had copyright nonsense literally snuck into the text of bills over night. Then there are things like Internet monitoring that the public has knocked down multiple times. It appears, if recent news reports are to be believed, that they must moved it deep into classified land at the NSA and simply refuse to admit that they are doing it. The corporations are part of the political class as are other major groups like industry associations ( RIAA/MPAA), unions, various political groups (environmental groups, National Rifle Association etc) and then the political parties themselves. The fact of life is these groups organize on a more or less permanent basis. They have continuous fund raising and/or large memberships. Which gives them clout. The public as a whole can come together to oppose or support something but they lack staying power. Just look at two recent large public movements, the "Tea Party" and the "Occupy Movement". Both started out as fairly sizable groups of disaffected citizens. They both managed to keep up fairly high levels of activity for a year or so. Now they are both having trouble keeping their large bases motivated. After all average citizens can't dedicated themselves to politics 24/7. They have careers to manage, classes to attend, families to take care of, debts to pay etc. Politicians pay attention to such mass movements because if you have an election while they are still moving bad things happen to you. As the Democrats in the house found out when they had to stand for election while the "Tea Party" was in full swing or the Republicans found out when "anti-Bush" sentiment was at its height. Thing is everyone in the power structure knows those movements won't last. These full time pressure groups are here to stay and congress knows it. Really our only long term chance is to form our own groups. When these groups talk congress looks at two things, how much money they have and how many members they have. Problem right now is groups representing the right things have too few of both where as groups pushing the policies we don't like tend to be well funded and/or large.

Re:Same Shit, Different Day

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and wha'ts really funny... From TFA:

"Privacy advocates prefer that a domestic agency like Homeland Security play a central role in the information-sharing process instead of a spy agency like the National Security Agency (NSA)."

We do? Funny, I trust NSA a lot more than I trust HomeSec. NSA isn't interested in what MP3s I listen to while looking at b00bies, because it's got real problems to deal with. HomeSec, being part of DoJ, is much more likely to be interested in my MP3 collection under Hollywood-funded Democratic administrations, and b00bies under Theocrat-friendly Republican administrations.

Re:Same Shit, Different Day

[Anonymous Coward]

so we should eliminate the money channels.
tax campaign contributions at 99% over 100.00
some rich twat would still carry that burden.

Re:Same Shit, Different Day

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you supposed to fight this kind of system

Violently.

Re:Same Shit, Different Day

[cusco]

We used to have permanent worker-organized groups like that, they were called 'unions'. They made amazing changes in the way the US and other western countries were run. Unions held and wielded power, real power not just votes. Henry Ford used to take his family to his private island in Lake Michigan during contract negotiations, where my grandfather would see men with Tommy guns patrolling the beach when he went fishing. Thanks to them we have things like lunch hours, safety rules, workmen's compensation, chemical exposure limits, 40-hour work weeks, overtime, etc. etc. etc. Because of their political power the middle class grew to world-record levels and the uber-wealthy and mega-corporations were kept under control. Unfortunately their membership got complacent, and by the end of the 1960s union leadership had sold out to the very interests they were supposed to protect union members from.

I'm not sure where their replacement is going to come from.

We have two choices to make it go away..

[Anonymous Coward]

Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod parent up. Please!

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[jamstar7]

Lock & load...

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[DarwinSurvivor]

They'll just scream pirates and demand a bail-out like the automotive companies did. Then they'll use the governments money to buy new laws.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[Anonymous Coward]

Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.

Nah, they'll just attribute their loss in sales to some booming technology or other and lobby for a levy on them.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[Serpents]

I like the ideas (especially the latter one) but how much time would pass before taxes similar to the "potential piracy tax" we pay on blank CDs would be charged even on printer paper? I'm afraid we would only make them push for legislation which would guarantee them a nice and steady stream of revenue regardless of whether they actually release any movies or music

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[Phrogman]

I am perfectly willing to stop buying music and movies for a 2 year period if everyone else is willing (actually I never buy any music - I don't listen to it - and I *seldom* buy a movie because so few of them are worth watching more than once. Those that are IMHO, I buy).
I can see nothing negative about the MPAA and RIAA going bankrupt. People will still want music and movies, they will just cut out the leeches^H^H^H middlemen that serve no real purpose

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[AdrianKemp]

This doesn't work long term.

The only way to get rid of them *is* to stop consuming their products, it will work and it will work faster than most people think.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[TheRaven64]

Option 1 will just leave a load of rich sociopaths looking for something else to exploit.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll join that protest, but I'm afraid my participation won't change much. For economic reasons, I've basically been protesting for 2 years already. I've spent about $10 on music in the past 2 years, and none on movies.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[Anonymous Coward]

shooting is quicker and more satisfying

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[IamTheRealMike]

Er, the problem is exactly that people stopped buying movies and music, they just didn't stop consuming them.

"Revolution" is one way to fix the issue of bills like these. People giving up piracy and paying for what they use would probably also work, as it'd take away the rationale and I think the labels/studios would lose interest in lobbying at that point, given that it's expensive, slow and frustrating for all involved.

Of course most people want to shout "fuck the corporations" and feel radical at the same time as they guzzle down Hollywood movies from TPB. So that solution isn't going to happen.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[AlamedaStone]

Er, the problem is exactly that people stopped buying movies and music, they just didn't stop consuming them.

"Revolution" is one way to fix the issue of bills like these. People giving up piracy and paying for what they use would probably also work, as it'd take away the rationale and I think the labels/studios would lose interest in lobbying at that point, given that it's expensive, slow and frustrating for all involved.

Of course most people want to shout "fuck the corporations" and feel radical at the same time as they guzzle down Hollywood movies from TPB. So that solution isn't going to happen.

When the major labels tank, it will be because their individual investors finally accept that the world no longer values the product. It doesn't matter whether people are pirating or not - if we valued the product, we'd buy it. (Portal Song author) Jonathan Coulton, for example, gives a non-trivial amount of his music away free on his website. http://www.jonathancoulton.com/ At PAX East he was selling signed, branded thumb drives which contained his complete discography for about $60 - and they were selling (besides which, the dude gives a hell of a show).

Literate consumers aren't geese anymore, ready to have shitty media crammed down our throats to produce financial pate for greedy marketing slobs. I've downloaded plenty of media that turned out to be garbage, and so I don't pay for it. I'm not ashamed in the least, either. I feel it makes me a truly informed consumer, and I vote with my wallet every chance I get. Good luck returning a shitty movie, piece of software, or album if you pay in advance. The industry is inside out. It forces you to commit a crime to determine value. Fuck 'em.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[idontgno]

This doesn't work long term.

It can, if they can buy the right laws. Like a excise on anything faintly related to media or communications technology, transferred directly to their coffers, to "compensate" them for their "losses".

The object is to get your money. In the old days, suckers would created product and participate in an economic transaction, exchanging some aspect of that product (sales, licensing, etc.) for your consumer dollars. Nowadays, the savvy media/communications mogul knows he can cut out the hard part (making and marketing consumable product) and pass the savings on to himself, as long as he can use the law to extort the money out of the consumer public that he would otherwise have had to earn in some fashion.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[AdrianKemp]

You've been trolling against big media so long you don't even know you're doing it anymore.

There is no law that they would succeed in buying that would allow them to persist with 0 income on a long-term basis.

As long as people continue buying the stuff, and a large contingent continue stealing the stuff, they aren't going anywhere.

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[DarwinSurvivor]

Ever heard of the Canadian CD Levy? A few more of those for HDD's, flash drives and DVD's and they could survive on nothing but taxes!

Re:We have two choices to make it go away..

[AdrianKemp]

There's a few issues with that:

- It applies to blank media only, every attempt to extend that was shot down.
- Only a small portion goes to the record labels
- It has not even managed to get extended to the current generation of discs (blu-rays)

There are far better examples from other countries you should have used, but even they are irrelevant. The record labels cannot exist in a profitable state without a product to sell. The government will not add taxes to media for a corporation whose only income is taxes on media.

Turbulence?

[ajclements]

Time to up the ante and cause a microburst. That has always been known to help craft on approach to landing.

Re:Turbulence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking that there really isn't any middle ground any more, is there. Relatively peaceful protests are barriers, but if it gets upped a notch, then it's terrorism. It's all very nice that government is being told to stay the course. What direction is the rudder being pointed, again?

don't shout down the bill...

[Anonymous Coward]

...shoutdown the politicians that would suggest the government has a right in the first place. Always hold them accountable. (thats the goal)

Re:don't shout down the bill...

[Anonymous Coward]

... suggest the government has a right in the first place

LAW and order is the primary purpose of government. It does have the right to make new laws.

The problems is the laws are: written by the corporations, written for the corporations, sponsored by corporate shills who 1) don't understand the small print, 2) don't put their electorate first.

Re:don't shout down the bill...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government loses all constitutional rights when it ceases to serve the people.

Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican Rep?

[WiiVault]

Not that the Dems are much better, but they aren't so brazen in their total disdain for informed voters. Pure evil vs the possibility of some hidden discarded and ignored goodwill is 2 two party choice. Today's voters are indeed offered options at the polls; between Vader or the Emperor himself. Maybe they will both destroy each other in the end. Or did George decide to fuck with that too?

Here's an idea

[mwvdlee]

Representative Mike Rogers

Why don't the US instate public representatives in addition to the current corporate representatives?
It seems like such an easy solution to this representation issue you guys are having.

Re:Here's an idea

[AlamedaStone]

Representative Mike Rogers

Why don't the US instate public representatives in addition to the current corporate representatives?
It seems like such an easy solution to this representation issue you guys are having.

Because only Commies and Terrorists support public funding of campaigns.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

you can't get anything done in Michigan.

it's pretty except for the representation,
that's sucked for 50 years.

jr

it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

He isn't insulting the public he is just insulting the power of influence they have. Honestly who didn't know that the system doesn't work and it's only an illusion of control? Problem is we can't change it.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

We can change it. Unfortunately, violence may be required.

Re:it is turbulance

[DarwinSurvivor]

Physical (armed) revolution + north american military budgets == slaughter. We no longer live in a world where a band of freedom fighters with rifles can fight the army.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem with violent revolution some people on here like to pretend to support. First of all it's violent, which sucks for everyone involved.

Also just who do you imagine is going to end up in power?

Rich right wing bible thumping, NRA card toting, Amuricans... Also known as the republican base, that's who. Exactly the same people responsible for the attacks on both education and science (and just about anything else) whenever facts are inconvenient for them.

So the real options are basically find a country that won't give into these assholes "policies" and that will accept a lot of high tech workers, actually has smart business/political separation policies and brain-drain the US. Only problem is, that country isn't out there. Start organizing a constant offensive of smart rational people saying we won't put up with this shit and start winning over people that just don't pay attention to this type of crap before casting their votes which is basically only represented in the media by Stewart and Colbert at this point. Maybe then we could get some non-scumbags in office and end the stupid ass PACs, money as free speech, corporations are people and can buy politicians/legislation bullshit.

More likely though, "entitlement programs" run out, gas prices continue to rise and things get a lot worse before they get better.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the military aren't all heartless monsters without families. If they see a good portion of the nation is rebelling, I think many of them would be on our side (or at least refuse to slaughter us).

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

Go tell that to the Taliban. Of course, you run the risk of them laughing in your face and/or shooting you. Tell it to the Egyptians or the Syrians. Tell it to the Kosovar Albanians (talk about wagging the dog). Tell it to the Hizballah. Asymmetric warfare works because, not in spite of being asymmetric. To take the canonical example, one Qassam rocket costs in the vicinity of 750 USD. They are successfully thwarted by the Iron Dome system, at a cost per engagement of about 50000 USD, with an impressive PK of about 0.9.

Re:it is turbulance

[Alex Belits]

It works because US invaders are on their side.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how many are onboard if the revolution happens. If it's big enough, you'd be surprised. Tanks, aircraft, drones, humvees, etc. all need that precious fuel. Ammuntion doesn't magically come out of nowhere. Same with food. Watch what happens to morale when troops don't get to eat much after a week or two.

If popular support drops out, the military only has about three months tops to get things back in order. (Provided there isn't any outside support.) And that's if the military stays together in this situation.

Past the two month point with no fresh supplies, a modern military would have scant in the way of resources that would allow it to use its top tier weapons. Everything would soon fall on the infantry, which greatly levels the playing field. (Sure they'll still have bigger guns, but it doesn't count for much vs. insurgents that wisely pick when and where to fight.) Particularly if resource centers like depots and such are destroyed by the resistance movement. Without civilian support, it seems doubtful that military itself has enough people that can run or repair factories, farms, and refineries to keep the war machine going.

As far as the topic of revolution goes other than the military aspect... Most people have decided against it because of the odds of the replacement gov't being worse. (Religious wackos, authoritarians, various doctrine establishments, or just simply a shism of a large nation into many weaker smaller ones that may be under control of equally bad governments.) When it finally does get to the point where it appears it can't get much worse (counting those scenarios) - that's when you should look out for things to really start happening beyond mere protests.

In some ways, I think the best we could hope for during a revolution (if it happens) is that the military (wisely) chooses to stand down, many "representatives" end up on trial for treason against the nation and citizenry, and the constitution gets revitalized as bad laws are repealed and more protections against corruption are put into place. But whether or not that's what actually happens remains to be seen.

Re:it is turbulance

[arb phd slp]

We can change it. Unfortunately, violence may be required.

Let me point out what that would look like: Remember Gabrielle Giffords? A judge and a rep were shot, and a completely innocent kid got killed at the same time. You're talking about that times a thousand?

When Giffords was shot, we, as a nation, decided we didn't like that. (Or was the outpouring of sympathy just a fabrication by corporate-owned media?)

I'm sure your revolution will be completely different than that because your revolution will be based on rational grievances like copyright law, rather than schizo lunacy. And you'll only go after those awful, horrible, oppressors who no one likes. Also, your marksmanship is so much better that little kids won't get killed in your crossfire.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get to a point where a large portion rebels because those who organize anything will be crushed by the "justice system" long before they can assemble any kind of support. Labeled as terrorists and demonized in whatever way they think effective.

Besides, there's the whole "emotionally divide the populace to hate each other over venial things" to keep them under control.

Re:it is turbulance

[flirno]

Successful revolutions are successful because elements of the military side with their family members over the government. This applies to anywhere barring outside aid. When Tommy figures out that the 'terrorists' he is expected to shoot are his cousins, sisters, brothers, grandfathers and what not he has to decide where his loyalties are. During a revolution the loyalties for many soldiers will be with family and when this happens en masse the old government is over. Period. Also over would be the old level of civil order, economy, social services of every kind and individual standards of living and health.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

If, God forbid, civil war breaks out, it will most likely be predominantly military vs. "civilian law enforcement"

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

"When Giffords was shot, we, as a nation, decided we didn't like that. (Or was the outpouring of sympathy just a fabrication by corporate-owned media?)"

  I have no love for anybody who has voted for any US budget the last dozen or so years (think back to with Clinton, disregarding a few tricks, the budget was nearly balanced).

Was it a fabrication? More or less. Fact is she was shot but a nutjob not a wingjob. Psychosis not politics was the motivator.

Re:it is turbulance

[DarwinSurvivor]

Those countries' militaries are pathetic compared to the arsenal of long-range weaponry the US military can launch at the push of a button (and I'm not even talking about nukes). A few drones is nothing compared to that.

Re:it is turbulance

[Anonymous Coward]

The outrage was as genuine as it could have been, but in the truest American sense it meant essentially nothing since it resulted in no-profits lost for the gun industry as no one decided to reexamine/propose new gun regulations/reform..

Re:it is turbulance

[arb phd slp]

I have no love for anybody who has voted for any US budget the last dozen or so years (think back to with Clinton, disregarding a few tricks, the budget was nearly balanced).

Was it a fabrication? More or less. Fact is she was shot but a nutjob not a wingjob. Psychosis not politics was the motivator.

What difference does it make what the motivation was? The action taken was the same.

And for most people who aren't criminally sociopathic, there is, and should be, a huge gap between "no love for..." and "shooting and killing".

No he's not.

[Zsub]

But here you are wrong. With SOPA, the public at large managed to find -- finally, I might add -- the supreme spot where to exercise influence over legislation. See, if corporations control politics, it's no use trying to influence politics directly. But if we can influence the politics corporations push for, which we demonstrably can, we can influence politics. Therefore, your point that people don't matter anymore is false.

Re:No he's not.

[AdrianKemp]

This is in fact the sole thing people need to realize.

The citizens still hold all of the power, they just need to focus it at the right targets. If people *actually* went to the companies they buy services from and demanded a change, it would happen.

The government can do whatever the fuck they want as long as the corporations are happy, the corporations don't have that freedom (with some exception regarding bailouts, but those don't work long term)

Re:No he's not.

[Jason Levine]

The problem is that people are easily distracted and corporations (for all of their focus on short-term gains) are patient. They can enact a hundred mini-SOPAs to slowly move us to the point where we have a full SOPA in place while making sure the people are a) distracted and/or b) not outraged enough by the mini-SOPA to act.

Re:No he's not.

[Hatta]

It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't. SOPA died because it was legitimately against the business interests of Google, et al. It didn't die because we all asked Google nicely to oppose it.

Re:No he's not.

[Anonymous Coward]

SOPA wasn't defeated until several corporations - Google et al. - started campaigning against it. Its defeat may have been in the public's best interest, but the manner of the defeat wasn't such a clear-cut victory for public influence on politics.

"Turbulence"

[girlintraining]

... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."

Re:"Turbulence"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dickens.

Re:"Turbulence"

[AlamedaStone]

Dickens.

I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to Charles Dikkens, the well-known Dutch author.

Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin?

[FSWKU]

To paraphrase:

Mike Rogers: "The will of the people will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that democracy has been dissolved permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."

Barack Obama: "But that's impossible! How will we maintain control without the illusion of people having a voice?"

Mike Rogers: "The regional CEO's now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local populations in line. Fear of having their personal information leaked with immunity."

Barack Obama: "Excellent. Everything is proceeding exactly as I have forseen it..."

Re:Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin?

[Anonymous Coward]

So anyone insulting or maligning Obama at any time for anything is a racist? Did you like Bush? You must hate white people.

That is completely asinine, not to mention being a strawman. I can't stand Bush, Obama, Clinton, pretty much any president we've had since the turn of the 20th. So do I just hate all races? Or perhaps, just perhaps, I might be able to disagree with a politician based on his *gasp* policies.

Astounding.

Re:Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin?

[mcvos]

Nothing racist about this. Many people who used to support Obama really are disappointed that he turned out to be not much different from George W. Bush.

If you play with fire...

[bgibby9]

Pollies will get burnt!

He defined "us" an turbulence?

[erroneus]

Well, if that doesn't spell out his perception that he is in a class above the rest of us, nothing else does. Amazing arrogance.

Still, I'd guess we are only at about 8%... probably less... the rest of the world still has no idea what's going on.

Re:He defined "us" an turbulence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a short while to go. 10% is the threshold of 'mainstream' concern. GLBT rights, the American revolution... many many historical examples.

Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R

[stms]

Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom. SOPA/PIPA had some bipartison support (and opposition) but it was mostly the Democrates bill. Check out this informative wikipedia article. Both sides are equally full of currupt assholes stop giving one side a free pass just because you think they're ideallistically superior. Idealism doesn't mean shit when you have two wolves (the politcal parties) and a sheep (the people) deciding what's for dinner. They mainly just argue about how they're going to cook us.

Apt metaphor

[Arancaytar]

Enough turbulence, and the whole bill will come crashing down in flames, killing the reelection prospects of all on board.

Turbulance kills!

[sjames]

Hundreds have been killed in crashes due to turbulence.

I can beat that tune in one step...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Turn off the electricity for a month.

Something like the northeast blackout a few years ago. But a lot worse. Not impossible given our aging infrastructure and overloaded systems..
Vast majority of the country. And lasting several weeks straight.

Same thing that always happened if you let a large simcity city lose power for too long... Riots, protests, fires, destruction, collapse of basic services. A downward spiral you better fix REAL fast.

Re:I can beat that tune in one step...

[luther349]

as you said a few years ago i was in the massive blackout for weeks. and to be honest it was not so bad and i was in the city. we even had access to fuel the local gas station owner managed to convert his fuel pump to manual operation. i don't think we had any riots or looting. i used my car as a generator and battery charger. so i even had a small tv to watch. but for the most part i just was very drunk lol.

Google Does Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

but look at China, bad, bad China.

Litigation

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, if only someone had the foresight to incorporate something in our laws to prevent tyranny.

Oh wait, they did; it's the constitution. See you in court, asshole.

america is going down

[Anonymous Coward]

this is yet another proof.
You fail'd hard and you did not learn and fail again.

Turbulance eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's stupid comments like those that draw needless attention. If he would have been more discrete this would have not made any headlines.

Now people are looking at what he says, how he said it...then again no matter what you say, if it goes on record, someone, somewhere will take it out of context and find fault with it.

Perspective

[trout007]

The problem here is that people have the wrong perspective. We haven't been a free people since the Civil War. The Civil
War was really a battle of two ideas. One was that you could keep people in chattel slavery. That was the old idea that had been around centuries. The new idea was much smarter. It was to set up a system to enslave everyone but the key is to allow them to think they are free. It's pretty brilliant if you think about it. Those in control have 300 million slaves in the US that produce all manner if goods and technology the masters could never dream of. All they have to do is print little strips of paper in return. Genius.

Well...

[benjfowler]

You voted for these rightwing extremists, you then have to accept the consequences when they make bad laws to reward their backers.

Don't like tyranny? Don't vote for extremists. Simple.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You voted for these rightwing extremists, you then have to accept the consequences when they make bad laws to reward their backers.

Don't like tyranny? Don't vote for extremists. Simple

There are left-wing extremists too. Don't put them in the White House, either.

Re:Well...

[benjfowler]

That's the single dumbest thing I've read all day, and something I'd expect from an american conservative.

Obama is well to the Right of any centre-left party in Europe or Australia. He'd be comfortable as a conservative in most of these places, actually.

You're either stupid, or a liar.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're able to apply the term "extremist" but AC can't? I'm not really sure where you apply for that ability, but let me know.

And no, neither of these people is an extremist. A right-wing extremist would be pushing hard for theocratic or corporatocratic laws, and a left-wing extremist would be pushing towards actual socialism (read: not Fox News' definition of 'socialism).

Extremist has turned into a buzzword used to malign those with whom you have many disagreements. Its use as a colloquialism leads to "debates" like the one above. Utter tripe.

Re:Well...

[__aaltlg1547]

Yes there ARE left wing extremists but not in any national office on the last 30 years. Obama is somewhere between George HW Bush and Clinton.

Re:Well...

[moeinvt]

Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties in Washington DC agree on is that government should have more power and the people should have fewer freedoms. If these people are entitled to the label "moderate", then we definitely need more extremists. The type that will fight against this relentless assault on our essential liberties.

Re:Well...

[Hatta]

Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties

In the US, both major parties are right wing. One is just more extreme than the other. There is exactly one moderate in Congress, Bernie Sanders.

Re:Well...

[GameboyRMH]

They actually believe this shit. They call the Democrats communist among themselves, which is hilarious given how similar their policies are to the Republicans and that Nixon would run as a far-left Democrat today.

CFIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the senator is familiar with that term as well

Seriously America...

[Anonymous Coward]

...at some point Iran's internet will be better than yours if it continues like this.

Open contempt for the people he's supposed to...

[divisionbyzero]

serve. Nice. Well, at least he's saying what he honestly believes. It's the same opinion the MPAA has. The major lesson learned from the SOPA debacle by the MPAA according to their lobbyist in chief is that they need to make sure to get tech. companies on-board. No mention of fatally flawed legislation; no mention of stupefying ignorance of how the internet actually works; no mention of the curtailing of the rights of the people. Nope, they just need to buy off the right companies and politicians regardless of right or wrong. Fuck the people. They are just chattel and serfs anyhow. They have no real power. That's the lesson learned. Well I hope it's the wrong one.

I felt like real people were real pissed and maybe we'd finally had enough of corporations shoving unfavorable legislation down our throats. But, it's hard to say. The problem is that sustaining that kind of scrutiny and passion is near impossible. So, the lobbyists might be right. Just wait until the "noise" settles down and then when the public falls asleep sneak the legislation in through the back door via some renamed seemingly unrelated bill. Sigh. How do we stop this madness?

Freedom

[Alex Belits]

This is what "freedom" and "democracy" really mean -- nothing to prevent rich companies and their paid lackeys in government from pulling things like this.

If congressmen had mandatory public election financing (no "democracy" for the rich), and government was strong enough to be able to destroy "copyright industry" (no "freedom", "small government" and other dumb ideas that weaken the government and make it dependent on rich people and companies), no one would ever bother conflating security with rent-seeking and racketeering. The worst you will have to deal with, would be garden variety privacy issues -- ones that actually can be discussed when politicians aren't begging the rich to pay for their election ads.

Now privacy is going to Hell anyway, but on top of this, all parasites are getting a free ride with obscenely expanded copyright enforcement and intimidation of the public.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You complain about the gov't abusing you and then say "small government" is dumb. A small, limited gov't doesn't have the power to abuse you in the first place.

Re:Freedom

[Alex Belits]

Weak government serves powerful companies.
Strong government would serve people if for no other reason then out of pointlessness of serving anyone else.

Re:Freedom

[moeinvt]

I just don't get it. It's obvious that you believe the government is corrupt and controlled by the corporations. Yet you describe "small government" as a dumb idea? Why would you advocate giving more wealth and more power to a government you believe is corrupt and beholden to special interests?

Re:Freedom

[El Torico]

I disagree. A weak government serves no one in particular because it is an ineffective tool - a twig can't be used as a club. That way, it servers everyone in general, just not to a high degree. If it's too weak, then it's useless to everyone and anarchy exists.
A strong government serves either itself or the highest bidder.
Governments need to be as strong as they legitimately need to be and no more. That's no easy task.

Re:Freedom

[GameboyRMH]

...or protect you from sufficiently clever forms of abuse.

Re:Freedom

[tqk]

Weak government serves powerful companies.
Strong government would serve people if for no other reason [than] out of pointlessness of serving anyone else.

Read that again, think about it a few seconds, then compare it to our present reality. You're deluded if you still believe it. Yes, deluded.

You're making things up because they're what you want to believe. The US gov't is about the most powerful one on the planet. So powerful in fact, it isn't even bothering to care about public opinions held by its electorate. It serves powerful companies now and has done so for a long time, and it ignores dissenting voices.

China has a strong gov't too, but even the PRC is afraid of small protests over corruption and land distribution. Not so the USA.

Open your damned eyes.

Re:Freedom

[Alex Belits]

You're making things up because they're what you want to believe. The US gov't is about the most powerful one on the planet.

No. It is nominally in control of many things that supposedly give it power. It's still completely under control of people, companies and organizations who pay for election campaigns. In its whole history it couldn't do one simple thing -- institute public finance of everything elections-related. It's corrupt because it rents out its power to every idiot with enough money.

Re:Freedom

[Alex Belits]

Government is the only organization that can have significant power based entirely on people's will to support its power. There are no others -- any organization that has power delegated by the people is by definition a government of those people. Any other powerful organization is guaranteed to be an enemy of the rest of the society, so there is really no choice -- either people are enslaved by the companies, or they develop a sufficiently powerful government to keep companies under control. All slogans about "small government" are a part of the effort to sabotage this process.

Re:Freedom

[cusco]

There used to be these things called 'unions', perhaps you've heard of them? They were responsible for the implementation of such revolutionary ideas as the 40-hour work week, workmen's compensation, workplace safety laws, and the like. They held real power, enough that Henry Ford used to take his family to his private island in Lake Michigan during contract negotiations. (My grandfather used to see his thugs patrolling the beach with Tommy guns.) They kept the uber-rich and mega-corps in check for decades, leading to the largest middle class that the world has ever seen.

The mega-corps finally gave up trying to disband the unions and instead corrupted their leadership during the '60s and '70s. Now they're back in the driver's seat, and their bought-and-paid-for toadies at both the state and federal level are doing their best to destroy the few remaining vestiges of the public voice.

Re:Freedom

[Alex Belits]

Unions are entirely in the mercy of the government. The only reason they accomplished anything is because government protected them and assisted in acquiring members. Whenever government protection wasn't sufficient, unions were busted or taken over by organized crime.

For all intents and purposes unions in US acted as a government's proxy in implementation of Socialist policies because government officials had to always remain anti-Socialist.

Re:Freedom

[cusco]

Perhaps you need to research the history of unions in the US and Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Until they had acquired enough members that they became a very powerful force at election time they were consistently targets of attacks and suppression by every government. Troops were brought out and frequently fired into crowds of peaceful strikers. Union organizers were some of the first residents of Dachau. Government proxies? Hardly.

Re:Freedom

[Alex Belits]

I repeat -- unions would be squashed like bugs, would accomplish absolutely nothing, and no one would even remember they existed if government never was on their side. All legal protections of the unions, including them being legal in the first place, are entirely inventions of the legal system.

Call us what you want

[james_van]

but don't forget, sometimes turbulence causes things to crash. We caused enough "turbulence" to make SOPA/PIPA go sit on a shelf for a while.

Re:Call us what you want

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "we" didn't. Google and a few other large corporations made a big deal of it, so some of the politicians backed away. See what happens to CISPA if several large, highly public companies don't do the same again.

If you're an elected representative, who are you going to heed: the few dozen emails or phone calls from your constituents, or the buy in the lobby with the big check?

Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R

[pla]

Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom.

Not less guilty - "Differently" guilty.

The Republicans want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as mindless zombie serfs to the Corporate Police state.

The Democrats want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as politically correct zombies who don't want to float to the top (and aggressively push down those who do).

Both sides "hate our freedom" far more than the bogeyman of the week, and will take any steps necessary to strip us of what little sense of individuality we cling to.

Make an example of him

[Anonymous Coward]

His constituents should make a vigilant effort to ensure he doesn't get another term in office.

Re:Constituants are greed interest only

[OldHawk777]

The religious and corporate welfare US is a plutocrat republic.
IOW: Forget freedom, capitalism, democracy ... for US.

The religious welfare US will call out their minions to strike fear into the masses and (when needed) kill any patriots.
The corporate welfare US will call out their lawyers and politicians to economically strangle and torture small business and individuals into submission.

When the entitled fools like Rush, Ted, Glenn ... and congressional politicians got your back, you're more than likely royally fycked.

We are the oompa-loompas

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Or the 99%, or the little people, or whatever. Thus it will be until the oil runs out and the current governments fall. The "good" news is that the price increase/energy return gets so horrible so fast that this could happen before 20 years is out.

Cheers!

Re:Open contempt for the people he's supposed to..

[__aaltlg1547]

You seriously fail to understand the differences between SOPA and CISPA.

You also fail to understand that the army of supporters you think is behind you just isn't there. SOPA got millions worked up because of the things that distinguish it from SOPA.

Re:Open contempt for the people he's supposed to..

[__aaltlg1547]

... from CISPA.

Re:Telcom companies don't care about public opinio

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I believe you're looking for the third article on the left

No Confidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't we get this guy (and others like him) out of office with a no confidence vote? If he's not properly representing the people, then there's no point in him being a representative.

If enough people disagree with him on CISPA and he refuses to represent this view, demand a vote of no confidence.

Welcome to Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

You have 3 choices:

- Live with it
- Wait for a higher power to bail you out of it
- Take their fucking heads and the heads of their children until it stops

Captcha: earthy

s/Citizens/Consumers/

[Anonymous Coward]

The people of the United States have given up seeing themselves as citizens long ago. They are consumers now, even by their own reckoning.

Re:Constitu"E"nts

[geohump]

We don't need a new government. We need the old government. You know, the one of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? The one that had a constitution that said no torturing would ever be allowed. Where the constitution said the government could never arrest anyone without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge. Where no one could be searched (or wiretapped) without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge. The one where if the government did arrest anyone they could not be held incognito (disappeared) and had to be allowed access to their lawyers, visitors and family?

You know, the one that used to be THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

As for the parents comment that a revolution only puts extremist nutcases in power (what he really meant) :

Yep, Just like, oh, I don't know... THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ??

Its time to save ourselves people. We need a new political party that doesn't follow the examples of any of the existing political parties. Not the republicans, or the democrats, or the libertarians or the greens.

No government is ever perfect. The USA's older government had its problems too, corruption, discrimination and the like, but the current government has completely abandoned even the pretense of following the constitution and is becoming a totalitarian state. And it happened (is happening) under both the Bush and Obama administrations

We need a political party that represents the original intent of the constitution: THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL, AND THAT THIS DEMOCRACY SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THIS EARTH.

The initial goals of this party would be:

Step 1 - pass laws declaring that no company has the same rights as a human
Step 2 - make lobbying by businesses illegal
step 3 - make taking any gifts, no matter how small, even lunch, a felony for any law making representative, local, state, or federal.
step 4 - make it illegal to pass any law that exempts any law making representatives,( local, state, or federal) from laws the rest of the population has to follow.
step 5 - pass a law that says that any laws passed by any law making representative, (local, state, or federal) which increase the benefits (pay, health ins etc..) will not be applied to any of the reps in office at the time the law is passed. It will only be applied to the next rep to take that same office. So if a rep is in office at the time a salary increase is passed, they do not get that increase, Ever. Their pay and benefits are stuck at the level they were at when they entered office, except for any increase that wew passed before they got elected or appointed. Note that says "before elected or appointed" not "before taking office"
Step 6 - pass a law which makes it illegal for anyone who gives or attempts to give a rep a gift or a bribe to ever own or run or manage a business or part of a business again in their lifetime.
Step 7 - make quid pro quo exchanges a felony with a lifetime sentence.
step 8 - form an auditing corp branch of government. These individuals must be willing to have every moment of their life recorded, be well paid, and will have the power to investigate anyone, or anything at anytime for any kind of corruption. They will have the power to ask for and immediately receive any information they ask for. And if they do not receive it, they have the power to bring in any branch of the military they need to enforce their requests.
Step 9 - Remove all judges who cannot separate themselves from any childhood religious indoctrination from the Supreme court. Indeed, any Judge who cannot, should be immediately replaced by an Atheist (satan worshipping, baby eating etc.. ). Note - the vast majority of the US population is Protestant Christian. Why then does the the Supreme Court of all the land consist of 6 catholics and 3 jews? These people were all raised in religious cultures which indoctrinate them to polarized, extremeist, fantasy based views of reality. Examples - "God gave the country to us for our exclusive use! Even though most of us lef

What this bill does is expose a technique of ....

[3seas]

...deception. And that techniques is to go to a higher abstract level of a structure to effect a lower level but to remain isolated, protected from that lower level.

The same sort of deceptions the Occupy Wall Street protesters and movement are addressing.

Re:Constituants (Cows vs humans)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hence the disagreements of non-corporate citizens is "turbulence" - without lots of money, we are simply moving air.

The disagreements of cows, however, would be "flatulence" - moving air again.

A moment...

[Anonymous Coward]

They know CISPA will be screamed down. WHAT are they hiding up on The Hill? We were paying attention to SOPA and I believe the NDAA was rammed through (or there was preoccupation with something else at the time?), now CISPA.

Look at this hand, pay no attention to what the other hand is doing.

Then again, maybe the "Women are teh evilz!", "No dey ain't!" from the talking heads is the "look at this hand" while CISPA is punched through.

110% agreement... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is happening to our nation? I would have NEVER spoken this way before, as I love my country & it's people (because we're great & PROOF, yes proof, that the entire planet CAN live as 1 & excel... as we are that great 'social experiment' & "melting pot" of culture that forms an alloy of awesome, for lack of a better expression here).

* It really bothers me, & not just me, or folks online either... the past year++ or so now, folks have stopped me in the street while I take walks to just "chit chat" about life in general and this general sentiment always comes up...

(Our "fine leaders", puppets on the string of corporate payrolls & fellow "millionaire-minions" getting "fat & happy" off of our monies don't seem to mind though, now do they?)

APK

P.S.=> All I know, is 1 thing: We are STILL THEIR TRUE EMPLOYERS, & were I do to such a "fine job" on the job, I'd get the 'axe' in a heartbeat... which begs the question, why the hell are they still in office then? No people, accept 1 fact, of how they look at us all:

"SILENCE SLAVES!"

Know what "clued me in" to this a few years back? Watching Cheney on TV when he was confronted on the "no bid" contracts given to his former company AND how he was collecting pays from it - his reply to the news people no less, publicly? Check it:

"I DON'T HAVE TO TALK TO YOU!

What a sanctimonious asshole... period. Yes you do, you thieving scumbag.

(When technically, he was supposed to give up any interests in that area upon receiving the VP of the USA office... that is not without precedent, because as a boy I watched former President Jimmy Carter have to give up such interests in his peanut business (only honest politician there ever was imo, because when foreign dignitaries want to negotitate with us, they many times will ONLY speak to him to this day in fact))

Even my old neighbor, a former military man + mgt. figure in a HUGE "military industrial complex" Fortune 100 company that's RAKING IN BIG BUCK$ LATELY ESPECIALLY is disgusted... & he's a guy that practically 'screams' patriot with a Red, White, & Blue shirt. No, something's VERY wrong when someone like that, especially an older fellow whom I respect a lot in fact, starts talking that way... I can't deny it either, & yes, I see it myself!

... apk

read he doesn't give a shit

[davydagger]

Apparently Mike Rogers doesn't give a shit what the people fucking think. As long as his corporate sponsors support the bill.

Of course, here is his official contact info: http://mikerogers.house.gov/Contact/

start making "concerned citizen" phone calls. Remember to be assertive, but polite. Just remember, his PRIVILEGE of being on congressman is dependent on your RIGHT to vote.

Some evidence to my statements

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7BD1H0YTBs&feature=related

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJD73amKfQU&feature=related

and this one especially: Above the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta77LjZQa1M&feature=related

* I think you WANT to see those folks...

(I mean - Either he's an utter fool, or just doesn't give a flying "F" anymore now that he's scammed the hell out of this nation!)

APK

P.S.=> Unbelievable...Man - We're being governed by "the boys in the clique", nothing more... a clique of lying thieves! I had a HUGE argument with my own father about this more than a decade back, & he said I was "full of it" - Even he doesn't do THAT anymore... apk

Hmm

[DaKong]

And yet corporations write checks, while citizens pick up guns. Wonder who the politician will think butters his bread then?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet corporations write checks, while citizens pick up guns. Wonder who the politician will think butters his bread then?

Easy. The corporations who provide the tanks that roll over the citizens and their puny little guns. Or the corporations that air shows like Jersey Shore so that the citizens stay at home and do nothing because they might miss the next episode.

Representative Mike Rogers is just turbulence.

[DamnStupidElf]

The Internet will successfully route around it.

Re:Constitu"E"nts

[StikyPad]

Your post started off good, but then you wrote the rest of it.

Overly Simplistic

[DaKong]

There's some truth to what you're saying, but history does not uniformly support your claim, and there are so many variables that you cannot determine that result follows from the cause, revolution.

For example, take Gandhi. He put together a coalition of many parties who disagreed on many policies but which were united in the desire to get rid of the British. So they conducted a campaign of non-violence and non-cooperation that compelled the UK to leave. The United States is not India, but recent shifts brought about by the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and even the SOPA protest indicate Washington DC is not as monolithic as many suppose and can be moved.

I would not like a post-revolution order imposed by the Tea Party and they would probably dislike many things I would do, but we all agree that this Republic, as currently constituted, has ceased to do its job. We ought to be able to put together a new constitutional convention to craft the American Constitution 2.0 for the next 200 years.

Re:Open contempt for the people he's supposed to..

[divisionbyzero]

You seriously fail to understand the differences between SOPA and CISPA.

You also fail to understand that the army of supporters you think is behind you just isn't there. SOPA got millions worked up because of the things that distinguish it from SOPA.

No I don't. You fail to be able to read. The only point of similarity is that the two exemplify the disdain for the public with which legislators and lobbyist propose legislation. SOPA is piracy and CISPA is privacy. I also never claimed to have millions of supporters. Now please go off and doing something useful like take some remedial literacy courses.

Re:Constitu"E"nts

[ultranova]

We don't need a new government. We need the old government. You know, the one of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? The one that had a constitution that said no torturing would ever be allowed.

[...]

Perhaps it would be enough to simply mandate that all Supreme court judges be Agnostics or Atheists.

Try to make up your mind. Either you follow your Constitution, in which case your proposed religious test for holding a public office is illegal, or you don't, in which case why are you complaining when others won't either? Unless, of course, you are saying that your cause is worthwhile enough to warrant an exception while all others should still be bound by it? And then others say the same and you're right back at the current situation.

Where no one could be searched (or wiretapped) without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge.

[...]

step 8 - form an auditing corp branch of government. These individuals must be willing to have every moment of their life recorded, be well paid, and will have the power to investigate anyone, or anything at anytime for any kind of corruption. They will have the power to ask for and immediately receive any information they ask for. And if they do not receive it, they have the power to bring in any branch of the military they need to enforce their requests.

Again, try to make up your mind.

Note - the vast majority of the US population is Protestant Christian. Why then does the the Supreme Court of all the land consist of 6 catholics and 3 jews?

This is just a guess, but perhaps other people simply aren't as obsessed with religion as you? And its odd that you would worry about the underrepresentation of protestants in a body you propose barring them from entirely.

Partial list of other Possible other Gods to chat about:

At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or high.

Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R

[wilec]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

matthew@hypersynergy.com

hypersynergy.com

Well, I've complained...

[Anonymous Coward]

Much good it would do me... Here's the reply I received from my idiot Congressman:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011. Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan introduced H.R. 3523 on November 30, 2012. This legislation seeks to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities. H.R. 3523 was referred to the House Intelligence Committee on December 1. Although I am not a member of this committee, please know that I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 3523 and, absent substantive amendments that change its purpose will vote for this legislation should this or similar legislation come to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

Suffice it to say, I was not happy.

Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R

[stms]

Thank you for citing that I couldn't remember who said it.

Re:Constitu"E"nts

[geohump]

> "Your post started off good, but then you wrote the rest of it."

    MIB, 1997    "Eat me."    :)

congress are slime

[Anonymous Coward]

repugnicans are big-gov slime.