The people of his district thought that he was consistently the best man for the job. Who are you to tell them they can't chose who they want for their representation?
1). I simply said it was an authoritarian bill. I didn't say it was left wing or right wing.
2). "Nationalization of the auto industry" (even though that's not what happened) is not an authoritarian move.
3). Ron Paul is completely fine with authoritarianism. He just has a stick up his ass as to which level of government it occurs on. He was in favor of Texas banning sodomy; how is that not authoritarian?
No, it didn't. It just showed that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. "Slavery was once a civic institution, so because of that, gay marriage should not be allowed." Honestly? You have no argument for why gay marriage should not be allowed and you know it. You simply do not want gay people to get married. As long as straight marriage is recognized by the government, you cannot give any reason whatsoever for why gay marriage should not be, can you?
No. It's still not a valid reason to limit a bill by something as arbitrary and meaningless as length or word count. There are legitimate reasons for why a bill would need to be long.
Wow. "Demonizing of the poor"? You liked the kool-aid so much you bought the whole factory, eh?
That's the only phrase that can be used when you hear most of these people talk. You can try to ridicule me all you want, but what I'm saying is true.
And of course your opinion, as that's what it is, is the only valid one. That's a lot of hubris, and typical elitist-think. Sorry to disappoint you but a whole lot of people, a whole lot smarter & better-informed and educated than you, disagree with you.
Never said mine was the only valid one. However, I'm not the one who's trying to justify a bunch of opinions that have already been disproven. And no, any economist who follows the Austrian school actually counts for this.
And the rest of your "I was poor, but I did it all by myself!" is absolute bullshit. You honestly have no idea to what extent you were helped by others, that you refuse to see it plainly in front of your face.
Slavery was also a civil institution at one time. Slave owners registered their slaves down at the local courthouse. Just because something is or has been a "civil institution" is not a valid reason why it shouldn't be changed or abolished.
That is quite frankly the most asinine opinion regarding the topic I have ever read. Bravo. You have reinforced the idea that I should not feed the trolls.
No, it's pretty correct. The demonizing of the poor by the right wing shows that they truly have that "fuck the poor" attitude.
Just because someone else has a different idea on how best to help the poor
It's not that they have a "different idea". It's that they are actively trying to parrot shit that absolutely does not work, and are trying to bring about outcomes that have no basis in reality. They want to remove funding for scholarships used by poor people, yet still expect those people to be able to go to college. Then, when they can't afford to go, and have mostly shit jobs to choose from as a result, people like you look down on them and say, "Well, you should have worked harder. Then you could have made something of yourself." All the while conveniently forgetting that YOU were the result of the same aid you would seek to deny others.
Actually, they don't believe government should have anything to do with marriage, period.
I'll believe that when they actually campaign to remove straight marriage from the books. Until then, that's just a convenient cover story for them to be against gay marriage without having to appear like bigots.
Government should not be in the business of regulating religious ceremonies, whether they be straight, gay, or otherwise, any more than they believe that the government should regulate what days one may worship, the length of ceremonies, which texts may be read and distributed, or the type of candles to be burned.
They oppose gay marriage as an expansion of government power that shouldn't exist in the first place. Why is everyone on the left so opposed to government being involved in anything remotely religious *except* when it comes to the religious institution of marriage?
Why do people like you refuse to see that marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a civil one? I can go down to the courthouse and get married, with absolutely no context of religion. How does that fit into your worldview that it's a religious institution.
Please stop blindly following talking points and try a little mental effort on your part while applying intellectual honesty.
Nothing you have said has been intellectually honest, especially bringing up that shitty argument that they "only want government out of all marriage!" That argument is tired, debunked, and is only a thin veil for showing that someone is a bigot.
or they can pass the laws bit by bit, like they should.
No. In fact, you've just made the argument why your proposal is bad. If they go bit by bit, that makes it extremely hard to mount a resistance against such things. Hell, you said the pot legalization bill was one page. That leaves 24 more pages to put bits of SOPA, bits of PIPA, bits of this and bits of that. It's not going to work.
If you have a better way of stopping riders, I'd genuinely like to hear it
I don't, but I also don't think yours is a good idea either, nor do I think it will have the intended outcome.
Because that power would just sit back and stay empty, right? It's not like power abhors a vacuum or anything. And it's not like the tiny government you desire would actually be able to do anything to stop it.
While they may have taken money from pro-PIPA interests, that doesn't mean you shouldn't write them with your thoughts. In fact, those are the ones that need the most lobbying, as we need to change their minds on it.
Maybe you have more in common with constitutional conservatives and the TEA Party than you think.
Nope. Most of them are still "Fuck the poor!" and don't believe gay marriage is a civil right. By that, I mean they are perfectly fine with states banning gay marriage, despite the fact that such bans explicitly violate the "Equal Protection Clause".
I think he's trying to say that Republicans wouldn't let a bill funding orphanages for kids with cancer to come to the floor so that SOPA could be tacked onto it.
However, this bill started receiving coverage in national news outlets
I was under the impression that most national news organizations were ignoring SOPA. Most of the publicity came from high profile websites, like the kind that non-techie people visit regularly, had started awareness campaigns.
Ehh, that's not really a good idea either. Limiting the bills based on something arbitrary like page count doesn't do anything to stop that, and all it does is force the bills to be even more ambiguous than they currently are.
He's publicly said he'd veto it, so sneaking it into a bill is a death sentence for that bill.
So you put it in with something that would make an even bigger splash. Tax cuts, extension of unemployment benefits, military spending, take your pick. It'll be added to something that if he does veto, he'll be roasted all over TV for, and in an election year.
Won't like 90% of the websites that have messages that are anti-SOPA just reword them to mention PIPA instead?
Re:Internet wins...
on
House Kills SOPA
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And I think it can be argued equally as strongly that the end game to capitalism is fascism. Especially when you have large corporations that more or less have reached critical mass, and are no longer accountable to the people.
While I understand the point, your link doesn't exactly tell why he was allowed to kill the legislation. It talks a lot about the position of House Majority Leader, without actually saying what they do.
Oh please. You don't know anything about what they were talking about either. They said that the GUI was being used for a stats pane. A fucking stats pane for which there is absolutely no reason for it to require a GUI.
Slashdot Mirror
(since 1987!!?! WTF is wrong with you, TX-21?).
The people of his district thought that he was consistently the best man for the job. Who are you to tell them they can't chose who they want for their representation?
1). I simply said it was an authoritarian bill. I didn't say it was left wing or right wing.
2). "Nationalization of the auto industry" (even though that's not what happened) is not an authoritarian move.
3). Ron Paul is completely fine with authoritarianism. He just has a stick up his ass as to which level of government it occurs on. He was in favor of Texas banning sodomy; how is that not authoritarian?
No, it didn't. It just showed that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. "Slavery was once a civic institution, so because of that, gay marriage should not be allowed." Honestly? You have no argument for why gay marriage should not be allowed and you know it. You simply do not want gay people to get married. As long as straight marriage is recognized by the government, you cannot give any reason whatsoever for why gay marriage should not be, can you?
No, it doesn't. There's nothing in Capitalism that would actually stop the monopolies from forming.
There doesn't strike me as anything in the capitalist system that inexorably leads to specifically facism.
And there's nothing in a socialist system that inexorably leads to fascism either. That didn't stop the post I replied to from making that connection.
No. It's still not a valid reason to limit a bill by something as arbitrary and meaningless as length or word count. There are legitimate reasons for why a bill would need to be long.
Wow. "Demonizing of the poor"? You liked the kool-aid so much you bought the whole factory, eh?
That's the only phrase that can be used when you hear most of these people talk. You can try to ridicule me all you want, but what I'm saying is true.
And of course your opinion, as that's what it is, is the only valid one. That's a lot of hubris, and typical elitist-think. Sorry to disappoint you but a whole lot of people, a whole lot smarter & better-informed and educated than you, disagree with you.
Never said mine was the only valid one. However, I'm not the one who's trying to justify a bunch of opinions that have already been disproven. And no, any economist who follows the Austrian school actually counts for this.
And the rest of your "I was poor, but I did it all by myself!" is absolute bullshit. You honestly have no idea to what extent you were helped by others, that you refuse to see it plainly in front of your face.
Slavery was also a civil institution at one time. Slave owners registered their slaves down at the local courthouse. Just because something is or has been a "civil institution" is not a valid reason why it shouldn't be changed or abolished.
That is quite frankly the most asinine opinion regarding the topic I have ever read. Bravo. You have reinforced the idea that I should not feed the trolls.
Pure demagoguery.
No, it's pretty correct. The demonizing of the poor by the right wing shows that they truly have that "fuck the poor" attitude.
Just because someone else has a different idea on how best to help the poor
It's not that they have a "different idea". It's that they are actively trying to parrot shit that absolutely does not work, and are trying to bring about outcomes that have no basis in reality. They want to remove funding for scholarships used by poor people, yet still expect those people to be able to go to college. Then, when they can't afford to go, and have mostly shit jobs to choose from as a result, people like you look down on them and say, "Well, you should have worked harder. Then you could have made something of yourself." All the while conveniently forgetting that YOU were the result of the same aid you would seek to deny others.
Actually, they don't believe government should have anything to do with marriage, period.
I'll believe that when they actually campaign to remove straight marriage from the books. Until then, that's just a convenient cover story for them to be against gay marriage without having to appear like bigots.
Government should not be in the business of regulating religious ceremonies, whether they be straight, gay, or otherwise, any more than they believe that the government should regulate what days one may worship, the length of ceremonies, which texts may be read and distributed, or the type of candles to be burned.
They oppose gay marriage as an expansion of government power that shouldn't exist in the first place. Why is everyone on the left so opposed to government being involved in anything remotely religious *except* when it comes to the religious institution of marriage?
Why do people like you refuse to see that marriage is NOT a religious institution, it is a civil one? I can go down to the courthouse and get married, with absolutely no context of religion. How does that fit into your worldview that it's a religious institution.
Please stop blindly following talking points and try a little mental effort on your part while applying intellectual honesty.
Nothing you have said has been intellectually honest, especially bringing up that shitty argument that they "only want government out of all marriage!" That argument is tired, debunked, and is only a thin veil for showing that someone is a bigot.
or they can pass the laws bit by bit, like they should.
No. In fact, you've just made the argument why your proposal is bad. If they go bit by bit, that makes it extremely hard to mount a resistance against such things. Hell, you said the pot legalization bill was one page. That leaves 24 more pages to put bits of SOPA, bits of PIPA, bits of this and bits of that. It's not going to work.
If you have a better way of stopping riders, I'd genuinely like to hear it
I don't, but I also don't think yours is a good idea either, nor do I think it will have the intended outcome.
Because that power would just sit back and stay empty, right? It's not like power abhors a vacuum or anything. And it's not like the tiny government you desire would actually be able to do anything to stop it.
While they may have taken money from pro-PIPA interests, that doesn't mean you shouldn't write them with your thoughts. In fact, those are the ones that need the most lobbying, as we need to change their minds on it.
Maybe you have more in common with constitutional conservatives and the TEA Party than you think.
Nope. Most of them are still "Fuck the poor!" and don't believe gay marriage is a civil right. By that, I mean they are perfectly fine with states banning gay marriage, despite the fact that such bans explicitly violate the "Equal Protection Clause".
I think he's trying to say that Republicans wouldn't let a bill funding orphanages for kids with cancer to come to the floor so that SOPA could be tacked onto it.
Which is why all of those sites should reword their blurbs to read "PIPA, and all bills like it".
However, this bill started receiving coverage in national news outlets
I was under the impression that most national news organizations were ignoring SOPA. Most of the publicity came from high profile websites, like the kind that non-techie people visit regularly, had started awareness campaigns.
I'd start with people who are on the sponsor list, and any donors from Hollywood.
Ehh, that's not really a good idea either. Limiting the bills based on something arbitrary like page count doesn't do anything to stop that, and all it does is force the bills to be even more ambiguous than they currently are.
He's publicly said he'd veto it, so sneaking it into a bill is a death sentence for that bill.
So you put it in with something that would make an even bigger splash. Tax cuts, extension of unemployment benefits, military spending, take your pick. It'll be added to something that if he does veto, he'll be roasted all over TV for, and in an election year.
And yet SOPA/PIPA were/are supported by both of California's Democrat senators
Probably because Hollywood supported it, and they are huge in California?
Granted, Silicon Valley is huge too. And at least the House members (both R and D) from around Silicon Valley fought against it.
Won't like 90% of the websites that have messages that are anti-SOPA just reword them to mention PIPA instead?
And I think it can be argued equally as strongly that the end game to capitalism is fascism. Especially when you have large corporations that more or less have reached critical mass, and are no longer accountable to the people.
Uhhh, no. That is not a left wing bill. It's an authoritarian bill.
While I understand the point, your link doesn't exactly tell why he was allowed to kill the legislation. It talks a lot about the position of House Majority Leader, without actually saying what they do.
No, not really. You'd have to have an entire legion of virtual machines on the same physical machine before it really matters.
Oh please. You don't know anything about what they were talking about either. They said that the GUI was being used for a stats pane. A fucking stats pane for which there is absolutely no reason for it to require a GUI.