How the GOP (and the Tea Party) Helped Kill SOPA 857
Hugh Pickens writes "Strengthening intellectual property enforcement has been a bipartisan issue for the past 25 years, but Stewart Baker writes in the Hollywood Reporter that when the fight went from the committees to the floor and Wikipedia went down, the Democratic and Republican parties reacted very differently to SOPA. 'Despite widespread opposition to SOPA from bloggers on the left, Democrats in Congress (and the administration) were reluctant to oppose the bill outright,' writes Baker. 'The MPAA was not shy about reminding them that Hollywood has been a reliable source of funding for Democratic candidates, and that it would not tolerate defections.' That very public message from the MPAA also reached another audience — Tea Party conservatives. Most of them had never given a second thought to intellectual property enforcement, but many had drawn support from conservative bloggers and they began to ask why they should risk the ire of their internet supporters to rescue an industry that was happily advertising how much it hated them." (Read on, below.)
Pickens continues: "Pretty soon, far more Republicans than Democrats had bailed on SOPA, the Republican presidential candidates had all come out for what they called 'Internet freedom,' and now for Republicans, opposition to new intellectual property enforcement is starting to look like a political winner. 'It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley,' concludes Baker, adding that unfortunately for Hollywood, as its customers migrate to the Internet, it is losing not just their money but their hearts and minds as well."
here we go (Score:5, Funny)
made popcorn as soon as I saw this come up in red - have at it kids.
Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I love it how people these days forget that in politics, one has to look at the options, actually evaluate what these candidates have done in the past and what they claim they'll do now, and pick one that has the most in common with the realistic goals that they share.
This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening. I know that I am not going to agree with everything that is espoused or even actually held as a belief by a candidate that I choose from. I have to pick the candidate that I think will do the best job all around, and issue-politics and muckracking doesn't help me see the bulk of the positions that a given candidate takes, only the ones that the opponents of the candidate think will be the most onerous.
Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
This, "Ohmygod! They agree with me on W, X, Y, and Z, but disagree with me on A and B, oh the horror!" attitude that seems prevalent is saddening.
I depends. Different issues have different levels of importance to different people. It could be the the person in your quote has a preferred position on W, X, Y, and Z, but doesn't care that much, but A and B are their key issues of concern. In such a case, they rightly shouldn't support the candidate.
Re:here we go (Score:5, Interesting)
I generally abhor people who are one issue voters.
But, the Internet is the most powerful platform for free and open communication the world has ever seen.
My opinion now is that ANY politician from ANY party who supports crippling the Internet is not just undesirable, but is in fact my enemy.
I will be a single issue voter when the future of the Internet is on the line.
Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
See, you just need to care enough.
Just imagine that you really believe that abortion (at any point in pregnancy) is morally identical to lining up young children and shooting them in the head. Do you see how that one position could outweigh all other considerations?
One issue voters are people who care very, very deeply about that one issue. I don't understand why anyone would resent that. The key is getting them to see that there may be more than one way to address their key issue.
Re:here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree - but I'm unaware of any way we could come to a conclusion as it is merely the opinion each of us holds about what a whole bunch of people we don't know "really" think.
I do know people who I am absolutely convinced do hold the position I've described, but I don't expect that to sway you. And I can easily imagine that there are people who actually view it the way you describe. So it seems to me we'd just be talking about immeasurable percentages.
...And "Boom" Go the Heads in the /. Hive-Mind (Score:5, Funny)
This is the geek-world "Truth That Dare Not Speak It's Name," namely that it is the liberal/democrat machine that continues to give oxygen and sustenance to that e-e-e-e-e-e-evil content distribution industry. Maybe it's because so many of the artists themselves usually espouse left-wing politics, support the democratic candidates, and will not know how to earn a dime if technical progress continues to chip away at the struts in the old content/contract/distribution/residuals system.
"Popcorn," indeed...
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
In my experience, both parties lose touch and experience creeping corruption when in power. I have observed, however, that it seems that the Republicans experience it faster than the Democrats do.
As far as your commentary on restricting rights, BOTH parties have their issues, and I do not see the Democrats as being worse than the Republicans by a long shot, especially when it comes to religion (prayer in schools, prayer at government functions, the flagrant display of religious iconography in public buildings, denial of other religions equal access for displays, etc), the right for one to decide how to best manage body medically, and who one is allowed to have sex with, contraception, and who one is allowed to marry. Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry, and how I'm allowed to access content vis-a-vis music and movies on the Internet.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Because broad generalizations are so honest and accurate.
When the entire POINT of political parties is to lump people into categories so that their positions become similar, broad generalizations come with the territory. Assume that everyone of a particular race or creed has a drinking problem and you're a bigot. Assume that everyone who attends AA has a drinking problem and you're likely pretty close to on target.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
In our 2 party system it is impossible to lump people together in different categories based on which of the 2 parties you vote for, unlike Europe which has a more functional political party system.
non-interventionist != anti-war (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be Paul who is running as a Republican in the primaries. But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war, but yet Obama is a very pro-war president.
If Paul were somehow to win he'd rightfully be classed as a non-interventionist. Were the United States directly attacked I have no doubt that he would respond forcefully and decisively. Interventionism is an entirely different animal and much harder to classify than simply saying someone is "pro" or "anti" war. For better or worse both major parties have been interventionists since FDR and WW2. Pearl Harbor and the specter of Communism after WW2 conspired to neuter the isolationist/non-interventionist wing of both major parties. I doubt that's likely to change in the next generation or so.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:non-interventionist != anti-war (Score:5, Insightful)
We had gridlock in Canada for four years and it was glorious.
We're the only country on the planet that's not in a recession right now.
Re:non-interventionist != anti-war (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually Pearl Harbor can be laid square at the feet of FDR who ignored the will of the people to start a war, sound familiar? I would urge everyone to read Herbert Hoover's biography, its free and online in several places, where he lays out how FDR went out of his way to insult the Japanese at every turn and give them NO way out that would allow them to save face
Even if you accept that FDR was trying to bully the Japanese into a war (a conclusion I found doubtful given that the official policy of his administration was Europe First, read the Plan Dog memo) they still had a way out. Had they simply attacked the Dutch East Indies and Singapore it's exceedingly unlikely that FDR would have brought the United States into the war. The American people would not have marched to war over European colonial possessions in the Far East. Instead they opted to sneak attack a country with eleven times their GDP/industrial plant and were rightfully bitch slapped for it.
instead he simply ignored how they repeatedly said they did not want their sons dying in Europe and the Pacific and kept bitchslapping both Germany and Japan until they got tired of it. Hoover also lays out how many were telling FDR including him that getting involved at that time in any capacity was not only foolish but gave Stalin all the cards because if the USA would have stayed out Stalin and Hitler would have wiped each other out and Japan was buried in a quagmire in China that was keeping the factions all turned on each other and keeping the communists from gaining an upper hand. Read the book, its quite enlightening.
And thank god he did in hindsight. Do you really think world history would be better if the United States had remained on the sidelines? You really think that without lend-lease the Soviets could have fought the Germans to a stalemate? Unlikely -- research the logistics of the Eastern Front sometime. Lend-lease is the only thing that kept the Soviets in the war and ultimately enabled them to defeat Nazi Germany. Why don't you ponder how many more Americans would ultimately have died if the United States wound up fighting a Nazi Germany that had successfully conquered European Russia. While you're at it, read Generalplan Ost, the Nazi plan for the Slavs. It would have made the Jewish holocaust look like a warm up by comparison.
FDR brought us into the war at the right time and place. Our casualties were among the lowest of any country involved in the war. That would not have happened if Germany had attained superiority over the Soviet Union and we had to fight the German Army on our own. Do you honestly think that the United States could have peacefully co-existed with the Thousand Year Reich?
Re:non-interventionist != anti-war (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks a handful of stateless terrorists with some razor blades is remotely similar to a coordinated military attack by an actual nation, involving ships, guns, ground troops, fighter and bomber aircraft, or anything resembling a modern military force is a moron.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
That would be Paul
Paul is not "anti-war". He is anti-MIC (Military Industrial Complex).
But traditionally you think as Democrats as anti-war,
Democrats are only "anti-war" to people that don't read history books. Here is a list of the major wars of the 20th century, along with the party in power when the US went to war:
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is doubly true now that "the two parties" seem to be largely defined by opposition to each other rather than any clear political platform intended to benefit the country and its general citizenry.
These days, "The Democratic Party" doesn't really have a clear platform, as it is really made up more or less of everybody who, regardless of their real political views, doesn't want to be "Republican(tm)" but still wants to be affiliated with a large enough political corporation to have a chance of being allowed to win an election (c.f. "Blue Dog" democrats, and President Barack Obama, who is often accused/praised as a good "moderate Republican president"). In short, they're really only definable these days as "not-Republicans". "The Republican Party", on the other hand, does seem to have a very concise and well-enforced political platform. Unfortunately, that platform is "the opposite of whatever 'The Democrats(tm)' want". They're "The Anti-Democrat Party".
tl;dr: "The Two Parties" are the "Not-Republicans" and the "Anti-Not-Republicans". Also: the US political system is a complete fustercluck, or perhaps just a circus put on by whoever is really running things...
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I think one of the causes for the difference is most European Countries are on a form of Parliamentary Government, and in a Parliamentary Government minority parties can wield power through coalitions; right now this happens mainly in the conventions. Now if we moved to a system where a portion of our House of Representatives were elected by popular party votes and you would start see Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Communists sitting in congress with Democrats and Republicans, now that would considerably change the way power worked in our country. The Tea Party and Occupy might even become full fledged political parties. Democrats really aren't as anti-war as you think, to me it seems their anti-Big Business leanings teaming up with the competitions of their beloved social programs for tax money makes them more anti defense-contractor than anti-war.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't that the republicans get corrupt faster so much as they wear it on their sleeves more. Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich. This is very easy to see and very easy to blame. The democrats on the other hand are just more subtle, but no better overall. They tend to serve special interest through either restriction of rights or providing broad funding to over-bloated graft. It doesn't become readily apparent until you look at their spending habits. Republicans don't like to tax for what has to be spent and democrats like to spend what they don't have, all to try and serve their special interests without upsetting anyone enough to raise a shit storm.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of your comment is spot on, but this one little point jabbed me:
Republican corruption tends to be ignoring the majority to serve a very few rich.
Here we have Republicans supporting consumers over business and small business over big business, which is the exact opposite of what you said. It's not just you, but it seems to me that no matter what Republicans or conservatives do, they are going to have the standard criticisms heaved upon them. If they do anything enforcing existing and Constitutional immigration laws, they are labeled racists. If they oppose abortion, they are labeled as anti-woman bigots. If they support a strong defense, they are accused of supporting the "military industrial complex". If they want to lower taxes for everyone, they are accused of only supporting the rich. If they they give workers the right to accept a job without joining a union, they are labeled as being anti-worker and in the pocket of big business. If they want to improve education and/or cut educational costs, they are accused of being anti-teacher.
No matter what conservatives do, those opposed the conservatives, not even necessarily their programs, will find a hyperbolic stereotype to label them with. Even when conservatives do something that is completely counter to the stereotype, the old stereotypes as still applied. Granted, the Shiite is flung both ways, but I tend to see a lot more of being flung at conservatives.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
You are absolutely correct and its been working. The left has been using that strategy forever. The 'genius' if you will of the likes of Karl Rove during the Bush era and now as well as some of the new anti-Obama super PACs and similar is that Conservatives have started to do the same thing to and about liberals.
You can't have an intelligent debate when the other side is permitted to get away with name calling and baseless hyperbole that is not subject to challenge. The right finally figured out its not worth holding the moral high ground if it means losing the election. The result is the political discourse in this nation has been reduced to level children on playground exercise. Until the public demands better and everyone gets together and agrees to something better the right thing to do is whatever it takes to win.
If Romney wants to win this thing the moment the GOP primary ends he SHOULD go hard negative on Obama. He should adobt Newt's nonsense about the food stamp president, label the president an apologist who hates America, etc etc. He should set the PACs about going after Obama's family. Tell people how even Michelle is a totalitarian who hates your freedom to even decided what to eat or feed your children. Remind people how Obama told his daughter she'd make her first million before 18, and accuse the entire family of just having their hand in the cookie jar, of nepotism, of looting.
None of it needs to be true, fair, or reasonable. Newt's SC success is proof of this. The more vapid and empty the better, in fact. I'd make this the UGLIEST election this Nation has ever seen, first because its the way to win and second because maybe just maybe when the dust finally settles people would wake up and decide they are truly tired of it.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Missed one:
4) If they give workers "the right to accept a job without joining a union" they are labelled as being "anti-union" because that policy weakens unions, by encouraging workers to free-load. They get to enjoying the benefits of the union's negotiations without paying for them.
Really? Because I work in a "right to work" state and we don't have that problem. While working at Kroger many years ago, union members received one set of benefits and pay scale. Non-union members received another.
There is no union at my current job. I enjoy full health benefits for me and my family, decent salary, fair treatment, plenty of vacation and sick days, maternity, 401k and a slew of other benefits I'll probably never use. Don't assume that without unions, the worker gets screwed. The worker only gets screwed when there are 20 other workers willing to take his place for less money. If that's the case, you need to find a new line of work.
But that doesn't matter. Are you saying that I should be forced to give my money to a union, that will turn around and give to the Democratic party? Would you feel the same way if getting a job meant you had to support the Republican party? I would be much more receptive the idea if unions were banned from politics, but that's not the case.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are MY stem cells, MY DNA, and MY eggs. The government doesn't get to tell me what to do with MY cells that make up MY body.
No, they are NOT! Go give a "fetus" a DNA test. You will find that it is NOT YOUR DNA. Roughly half of it came from you, but it is different than yours. Your DNA was yours when you were a fetus. It has not changed. Is your DNA the same as your mother's? Your child is your body just as you are currently your mothers.
And yes, the mother donates the egg. But the father donates the sperm. Just as much DNA is from the father than the mother. So, using your logic, shouldn't the father have just as much of a right to FORCE you to have an abortion? Since you are claiming ownership gives you the right to kill the child, the father is just as much an owner as you are, and, based on YOUR logic, should have the same rights. Or do you think that one sex should have more rights than others?
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Funny)
Abortion is the taking of a human life. You don't think it's a human life? Um, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
More importantly, what makes you qualified to determine what is human life and what is not?
Excellent point. I'll err on the side of caution and assume that if it has human DNA, independent brain waves and a heart beat, then it is a living human being.
Or, we could wait a few years and ask it.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
..Those issues hit me a lot closer to home than firearms ownership/carry,...
Let me preface my reply by saying that I am born and raised New York City liberal.
What good are you "closer to home issues" if the inalienable right to defend your very life and possibly defend your country and constitution from tyranny if your right to arms are severely curtailed or outright banned?
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that is how some of the most dangerous people ever were voted into office?
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
I know how you feel, but I don't think that the Republicans are any better. I don't make enough money to feel restricted by the Democrats, but the Republicans :
A - Want a presence in my bedroom, and I absolutely can't stand that.
B - Favor my employer's rights over my rights, and if I look what has been happening to workers' pay vs executive pay and profits over the past decade, I don't think they need additional favoring.
I don't like what the Democrats are doing either, but I feel more personally threatened by the Republicans.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice, and it's criminal that the State Department is blocking the return of surplus WWII-era M1 Rifles and Carbines from Korea (which would then be administered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and sold participants in its programs)
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
Stop trying to blame one party or the other. Both are at fault, and both should be punished. Vote third party.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
I vote for every libertarian on the ballot no matter the views or qualifications. Due to the fact, they are not going to get elected anyway, but if another candidate sees that they lost because of a libertarian it 'may' get them to rethink their position and move slightly away from the totalitarian principals that the two current dominant parties have.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that increased payment to lower earners a product of getting more actual value in the form of better health care and benefits? Or is it just from the rising cost of those benefits -- as their actual usable return value stagnates or even drops?
The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, because the rising cost of healthcare is something that will make the masses happier.
Oh gee, you put it that way and I'm freaking estatic that I'm now paying an arm and a leg to keep my arms and legs.
Now lemme see... Who tried to fix that recently? Oh yeah, that was Obama's big push. The democrats got behind that.
And who fought them tooth and nail, and are still trying to get it anulled? Yep, that's the republicans.
So THANKS.
I assume you are against giving the government too much power over the lives of the people. Well, here is something you may not have considered; Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If government is paying for your health care, they make the rules covering your health care. Note ELECTED officials, mind you, but those appointed by various "super committees" whose members are also appointed and not responsible to voters. How long do you think it will be before the committees realize that tax dollars are paying for cancer treatments because someone chose to smoke? How long before the outrage over the billions spent on heart medication because these people are too lazy to exercise and don't have the self control to stay away from cup cakes? How long before treatment depends on your government mandated health lifestyle score and how do you think that score will be determined?
You don't want government in your bedroom. Can you imagine government at your dinner table, prodding your to get off your couch or monitoring your alcohol consumption and workout schedule? How long until someone asks a smoker, "Why should I pay the medical bills for your poor life decisions?" At what point does good health become the law?
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
Everyone else, fyi:
The Cato Institute is a proprietarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc., the second largest privately held company by revenue in the United States
Just so you know where this little blurb is coming from. Corporate Kochs.
So? Ad hominem [wikipedia.org] much?
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4)
Maybe a better idea would be to allow consumers to pool their resources together, much like a company does, to get better rates or allow consumers to buy insurance out of state.
You know, you're right! We should come together as individuals to form groups that would be bigger and more powerful to demand better rates. JUST LIKE A COMPANY DOES.
HEY! I have a FANTASTIC IDEA!
How about we ALL band together to form the BIGGEST group to demand the BEST rate from the insurance companies! All of us. Together. Of course, someone will have to lead this new-found group of insurance buyers. Since we're all in this together, how about we be democratic about and elect someone. Well, not just one person, there are a lot of sub-groups and interests among us, so how about a system of representatives along with the main dude. Well this is kinda complicated, so how about we have a side-group that's entirely dedicated to settling squabbles.
GEE, if only something like this ALREADY EXISTED [wikipedia.org].
So? Ad hominem much?
Not as much as you try to ignore the tainted nature of that guys links. The Koch family is typical pro-corporate wealthy republican. And boy are they pushing their agenda [slashdot.org]. You can't take anything they say about commoners' income seriously because they are so disconnected from that entire class. Facts like the GP's don't exist in a vacuum. There really is a difference between a poor starving child telling you to suck it up and be happy, and a wealthy businessman doing the same.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
hey, when heterosexuality is kept quiet and no one mentions it in public, I'll accept your argument here as legitimate. Until then, allowing one view point to be expressed as openly as desired and requiring a different view point to only be held in private is not equality.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4)
The pary stance is that two peopel of the same gener shoudn't be allowed to be together.
70 years ago, you would be saying the same thing about black people.
". It's Girl Scouts admitting gender confused pre-teens"
so?
" It's the banning of communities from renting public land to Boy Scouts because Boy Scouts' parents don't want gay men taking their boys camping."
They want to discriminate, so no, they shouldn't have access to government funded programs. Add to that they are a religious organization.
" It's the handing out of contraception or sexual literature to elementary school kids.
because pregnancy is better? Since it has been shown convulsively that abstinence programs do not work, what do you prose? For me, and presumable you, we tlak to our kids. We help them learn and make decisions. Many, many kids never even have the talk with there parents, much less learn how to make good decisions.
Bottoms line: YOU want to shove your religious beliefs down the public's throat.
"Right to work laws allow workers to accept a job at place where unions exist without being forced to join the union,
which would be fine if they didn't get any representation or participation in union contracts. But that doesn't happen.
It also creates an environment where people are hired based on a perception of whether or not they will join an union.
Why should I pay dues and not you even though you get the benefits?
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
To me republicans are....
A - too uneducated to realize the technology IS there and IS mature. but they throw around dumb statements like " Can you imagine if the government mandated that the model T had to have 10 airbags, and get 50 MPG? " And the US government DID require safety things on the Model T, the hand crank was mandated to be a cam type that would kick out when the motor started instead of whipping around and breaking an arm.
B - You are complaining about something that is not "Union" but general Politician. The Republicans do this as much as the dems. Hell your Republican Christ figure,Ronnie Regan himself said, "union labor is important to the United states" It seems you guys cant see the corruption and stink that is all over in your own party, but it's clear as day in the Democrats. Everything you say about unions are the fault of lobbying and ALL politicians being dirty. Republicans are as at fault as the Dems on this.
Both parties are nothing but corrupt scumbags. And you are foolish to align yourself with such people, it degrades what others think of you.
How about stop frothing at the mouth and regurgitating what others tell you to say and speak for yourself. Learn about something before you spout half truths and outright lies as if they were fact. You end up looking far more credible and people will actually pay attention to what you say.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is just that the Democrats have more or less taken over the GOP [in-other-news.com] and Ron Paul is the only real Republican left.
I know it's hard to believe after 12 years of Bushes, but the GOP used to be a party of small government, non-interventionism and individual rights.
When Clinton reduced social spending [wikipedia.org] while the Bush before and after him increased it - who do you vote for when you are against big government?
So as far as I am concerned, it is either Ron Paul or a big-government-pro-war-bread-and-circuses president. It does not matter whether his name will be Obama, Romney or Gingrich.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the democrats have taken over the GOP, by moving steadily to the right for the past 30 years. Todays Democrat party is very much like the Republican party of 30 years ago. Obama is a conservative somewhere between Reagan and Nixon.
The GOP was never a party of small government, non-interventionism, and individual rights. Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency. Who started the War on Drugs? Nixon coined the term, Reagan made it policy. Nixon, pre-presidency, was a hawk on Vietnam. Hell, the "Reagan Doctrine" was explicitly interventionist!
How is it that you can get the basic facts of our political history so utterly wrong, and still be 100% correct when you say this:
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.
And yet they were still lower than when he took office. this is the stupidest quote I've ever heard trying to say he was against big government. He lowered taxes farther than he should then slowly raised them to help find the sweet spot, which is how it should be done.
And yet in today's Republican Party the vast majority of politicians have taken an explicit public oath never to raise taxes at all. Net rates can only ever go down, never up. How can you "find a sweet spot" when only a one-way ratchet is permitted to exist?
Oh, and Reagan equalized the treatment between capital gains and regular income in the 1986 Tax Reform Act.
The point is dead-on: today's Republicans's exhibit an ideological rigidity, and a preference for special treatment for the rich, that was absent with Ronald Reagan, who would be mocked as a RINO today if judged by his actual policies.
Ron Paul, according to Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
The GOP candidates, except for Ron Paul, seem to think that laws should be made based on religious views.
On the contrary, he thinks that there should be no separation between church and state [freethoughtpedia.com], and rather that laws should be based on Christian religious views. Ron Paul is pro-life because of his religious views [ronpaul.com]. And, rather than thinking the government shouldn't be involved in private medical decisions, he thinks it should be criminal, and investigated and punished.
Ron Paul also doesn't believe in evolution [scienceblogs.com].
Re:Ron Paul, according to Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
What criteria should we use to create our laws? How do we know that murder and theft should be illegal? Why is rape a crime? We as a society have to decide that certain activities are unacceptable. It was not that long ago that a man could not rape his wife. We believed as a society that men had certain rights over women. We have since decided that that behavior was immoral and wrong so we updated the laws to make it illegal. There are still people who believe those new laws infringe upon their rights and other countries have vastly different laws.
Does it matter why I believe that something should be a crime? Is it important if I believe something is wrong because of a strong religious background or simply because I feel it is wrong and immoral? The OMG HES RELIGIOUS BURN HIM! attitude is kind of silly. Non-religious groups come up with inane laws and ideas all the time. Can we simply judge the idea on its merits and not on why it was inspired? Ultimately our society will decide if a law is good and just. It may take a while, be we outlawed slavery and we outlawed beating your wife and kids. Prohibition was passed and then repealed. All those legal movements had religious arguments for and against them.
Re:Ron Paul, according to Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would you rather have as president, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or someone who doesn't believe in habeus corpus?
Re:Ron Paul, according to Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives.
... unless they're women seeking medical care.
He does not think that the Federal government should have any say over abortion, as that is purely a state issue. You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.
1. You sound angry. I imagine flecks of spittle dripping from your monitor as you furiously pound your keyboard. I'm sure that Doctor Paul would caution you to watch your blood pressure before you have a stroke.
2. If he doesn't think the Federal government should have any say over abortion, then why did he vote to ban partial birth abortions? If he thought it was purely a state issue, shouldn't he have voted against a federal ban, or at least abstained?
3. Ron Paul said: "There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist.” Although he thinks it should be a state crime, not a federal crime, he clearly doesn't think that his "personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives."
Which would you rather have as president, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or someone who doesn't believe in habeus corpus?
Someone who believes in the privacy rights of individuals, which rules out Ron Paul.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Smaller difference than you may think. I am very libertarian when it comes to federal government, less and less so as government gets closer to me down to being 100% for a benevolent dual-dictatorship within my own house over my family.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
He's a States Rights-er.
You say that as if you think that's a bad thing; it's not. In fact, if you actually read the damn Constitution [archives.gov], you'll note that the founders were also big supporters of state's rights and limited federal government.
*sigh* How far we've fallen from the lofty ideals of our Republic's fathers...
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters.
Except in a system where every vote is plurality takes all (sometimes called "first past the post"), even a 10% share (which Libertarians poll at but rarely get) is unnoticed by the main parties. They're not worried about attracting Libertarian votes, they're worried about getting 45%+1 out of the 90% who vote for one of the two main parties, and they don't give a shit about the rest.
And they're entrenched. Gerrymandering has made it even LESS necessary to have a majority. Look at Texas: Republicans are maybe 35% of the electorate, but thanks to careful gerrymandering they control 2/3 of the state legislature and 2/3 of the congressional delegation, and careful disenfranchisement - witness their neutering of early-voting this year after they realized enhanced access to the polls meant democrat voters, who actually have to work on election day rather than being greedy lazy assholes, went and voted on the available weekend days and almost threw a number of the GOP-constructed "52/48" districts to the Dems - takes care of the rest.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem with the Libertarian party is cannibas. Everytime I see a booth, every time I see anything from the Libertarian party - all they talk about is pot.
I'm like "Hey you bloody f***tards, don't you realize our country is falling apart. And all you care about is getting stoned. Can we please talk about real issue!"
And that alone is the comment I hear from almost everyone I meet who has been turned off by the Libertarian party.
Most of us just don't give a damn about your pot. We couldn't care less one way or the other, and that seems to be the primary issue talked about by party members promoting the party.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
And I fully know that the Libertarian party can never garner enough support to do anything significant, that is why I am throwing my support on the Republicans
I know I mentioned Tactical Voting [wikipedia.org] the other day in another article and I know some of the responses indicated it's a very effective tool. However, I still maintain that if everyone who felt like you do on this actually just voted for who they actually wanted to be president, we might end up with someone in office other than the mainstream Dem and Rep candidates we always end up with.
Food for thought.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
This made me think of one of my favorite Douglas Adam's quotes from So Long and Thanks for All the Fish:
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
This is sheer genius - sheer fucking genius. Here's what we do: we start an organization and solicit funds to portray the incumbents as lizards. Everyone at every level who's up for re-election gets their own web page, flyer, mailer, poster, TV ad, every major form of promotional material, where they look like lizards. The tag-line: "Why would you vote for a lizard? You don't like lizards. Lizards don't like you. Why would you vote for a lizard?"
Ok, it needs polish, but this could actually make a dent in the voting process - as well as drive up the need for pictures of lizards. That'll be my task. I'm a gonna dust off my camera and start snapping lizard pics. You organize the organization and round up the funds while I'm shooting lizards.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there is corruption in both parties, yet every time I watch Fox News or hear people like Glent Beck, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh talk, I wonder how it is possible for any sane person to support the Republican Party.
There are some decent folks in it, for sure. But the signal to bullshit ratio is so extremely low.
Also I believe that Republicans are the worst offenders in partisan politics. Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle. There is no common ground in the interest of the american people, ever.
Also, Republicans like to preach how they want to have a smaller government, cut expenses, less debt, etc. In reality what they do is funnel public tax money directly into their favorite corporations, usually oil and military-industrial, with contracts, subsidies and wars. All the time speaking of tax cuts, never mentioning that they apply only to the rich and corporations.
The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, that's funny. Cause that's how I feel when I listen to David Letterman, Barbara "pass it then we can decide what's in it" Boxer. Chris "congressmen should do what the campaign donors tell them" Dodd.
"Everything coming from a democratic president has to be put down by principle."
Really, really, are you that blind. How many of President Bush's top judge appointments were blocked. Versus how many of President Obama's.
You think this, because you only hear when Republicans block stuff, because you read news from sources biased to your views. Likewise, Republicans feel the same way, cause they get news biased toward their view. So they feel the Democrats are always blocking things.
Like President George W. Bush's request to regulate Fannie & Freddie years before the collapse.
"The Republican Party is the political wing of rich America, nothing else. Their tactics are fear mongering and ignorance."
Serious, that's the tactic of both parties. I've listened to Democrat politicians tell inner city folk that Republicans want them dead and their children in prison.
Oh, and let's not talk about fear mongering. George Bush's medical lawsuit reform would leave you with only $250,000 if you lost your sight or a limb from malpractice. Total BS lie, but it was what the Left propigated.
Lies, fear, are how politics works. Both parties are guilty of it. Only a moron is too stupid to realize that BOTH do it at, and pretty much so at the same rate.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, that will help them buy half a bumper sticker.
It's not about your support or my support any more. It's about the support of the super rich.
The average donation to a Super PAC starts at $100,000, and you don't have an extra $100,000 you can donate. Do you know why the number of commercials run by campaigns this year is DOWN by almost 75%? Because they don't have to run them any more, since the Super PACs are doing their work for them.
I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, I'm saying they don't matter. Parties don't matter, elections don't matter. This has become a game of RISK between groups of billionaires. Our fucking country has become a LAN party for the super rich and the rest of us can only look on in horror.
I don't care what your political affiliation is, the only way an individual is going to affect the outcome is to GET IN THE WAY. You have to take your body, and move it off your couch, and get in the faces of politicians. And you have to do it with a group of 5000 of your closest friends.
TacoCowboy, if you throw your "support" on the Republicans, you are a fool. Throw your support to your community. To your family. To those 5000 of your closest friends who will go stand in front of your congressman's office and demand that they do something or not do something. Your "support" doesn't mean anything, to anybody. Now, if 5000 of your closest friends come to honestly believe that Mitt Romney (or Barack Obama) is actually going to have any impact on anything (historical data says no) then go in peace and line up 5000 strong to support him. It makes you a fool, and delusional, but I support the right to be foolish and delusional almost religiously. But your "support", coming from a computer keyboard, is pissing in the wind. The political discourse on the Internet is nothing but jacking off, unless the goal is to meet up with those 5000 friends and GO OUT and do something. Anything else done by a non-billionaire is just energy you could be using to do something good and throwing it down the shitter.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Not being able to stand Democrats doesn't mean supporting the Republicans. In fact, standing against restricting the rights of everbody on the planet would mean standing at least as hard against the Republicans.
Everyone knows Republicans act far more as a unit, voting with their party, than Democrats ever do. Democrats are much more a case of "rotten apples" than Republicans are - Republicans are a rotten apple tree.
You call yourself "libertarian", but you're just like every other Republican who denies your loyalty to the Republican Party - while standing behind it 100%. It's irrational, no matter what mask you put on it.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
Re:I'm glad I support the Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
Alomst every intrusion Bush pushed; Homeland Security, NoNock warrants, NoTell warrants, warrantless searches, control of the Internet, indefinite arrest without charges - The Obama administration has enlarged on.
And I not only voted for him, I campaigned for him.
Okay, so you have an emotional attachment, and you're angry and want to punish him. I get that. I voted for him too, and I'm disappointed.
But take a minute and look at this from a financial standpoint. Think about all the wrong things he's done, and consider them all sunk cost. They're done and (at least this election) you can't get them back.
Then focus on future costs. Of the two available options, which one will be worst moving forward? I see no indication that the Republican nominee would undo any of those things. Indeed, comparing Obama and Romney/Gingrich, I think Romney/Gingrich would trample first and fifth amendment rights faster than Obama would. Romney/Gingrich want smaller government, but only where it regulates business or taxes rich people or helps poor people. Neither of them have any interest in stopping the things you hate about Obama, and I suspect both of them would further intensify those things so as to pander to the warhawk/"nothing to hide"/"with us or against us" base.
So by reacting with your emotions, I think you'll end up making things even worst. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face", so to speak.
Obviously your opinions about Obama's second term versus Romney/Gingrich's first might differ, but at least make sure you've thought them through before you vote.
...and we are surprised because...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:...and we are surprised because...? (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet capitalism -- let us not forget that Big Brother presides over an integrated, global capitalist system -- must be democratic, because it cannot be anything else. Capitalism could only grow hand-in-hand with democratic society. To deploy itself fully over the face of the whole planet, capitalism must even now permanently assure everyone of a choice, the outcome of which it has determined in advance. One must be able to choose between two indistinguishable politicians or two indistinguishable political ideologies because one chooses between two indistinguishable commodities. If there is no appearance of political democracy, there can be no sustainable capitalist system. This has been proven to be true by the permanent atrophy of the merchants in oriental despotism, by the ultimate defeat of Hitlerian and Mussolinian fascism, and by how poorly bureaucratic capitalism was managed by Stalinism.
Breaking news (Score:5, Insightful)
Dems backed by Hollywood and green tech, Repubs backed by fossil energy and military tech; parties found attacking opposition's supporters. Film at 11.
Holy shit... (Score:4, Insightful)
MY HEAD A SPLODE.
Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, the guy who introduced the bill is in the GOP. Give me a break slashdot.
http://lamarsmith.house.gov/ [house.gov]
Re:Lamar Smith is a Republican... nice try (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course you're correct, but this is all the right-wing (and Tea Party) spin on the issues. The main article is written by a former official under Bush II who conveniently ignores the fact that the Republican party opposes EVERYTHING supported by any Democrats. The Democrats wanted to extend the payroll tax cut, while the Republicans opposed it until they finally gave in on a two month extension. They're also trying to kill any additional regulation of Wall Street, because these bills are usually being proposed by Democrats. And the "individual mandate" of the Obama health care plan? That was supported by Nixon, the Heritage Foundation, and even Romney way before Obama proposed it.
This is just typical rewriting of history.
So we are forgetting (Score:5, Informative)
The chose Chris Dodd to lobby for them (Score:5, Interesting)
who was... wait for it... A democrat.
I'm not going to blame either side for this... I think we can agree that both parties have been on both sides of this issue.
Lets just be happy SOPA died and remember in the future that MAYBE the "other" party which ever that might be for you MIGHT not be made up entirely of vampire demon nazis... and might just be okay people with a different perspective on things.
Honestly, most of the political disagreements would go away if we stopped trying to impose things on people that don't want to participate. If you have a great idea... great. Anyone that actually likes that idea will support it. If your idea involves forcing people at gun point to do what you say though... maybe it isn't such a great idea.
Credit where credit is due. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular. If I were a single-issue voter, this would make me vote republican. They have the correct position on this issue.
Of course, I'm not a single-issue voter, and the Republicans are pants-on-head-retarded about almost everything else. But give them credit for being right this once.
Re:Credit where credit is due. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans deserve credit for how they stand up for freedom in general and against SOPA in particular.
Let's see:
Republican Lamar Smith authors SOPA.
Public is enraged.
Republicans back off.
Bizzaro World conclusion: Republicans deserve credit for being "against" SOPA
Let Me Restate (Score:5, Interesting)
So, to restate: More than a decade after the technical experts on the implementation side began explaining that centralized inhibition of copyright infringement is a costly boondoggle which will do far more to harm the public than to prevent copyright infringement, and more than a year after more fiscally minded people started asking whether we should be reducing copyright grants and enforcement instead of increasing them on a pure GDP maximization basis, the Tea Party decide to test the waters of supporting the rational, societally beneficial side. They did so when we technologists finally got so fed up that we started turning off the Internet. Actually, it wasn't just that -- they also realized (and frankly it was mostly this) they could use it as a political wedge issue to angle a few more seats in the power-and-pork circus.
Yeah, that's great. Nice work guys. Today you are truly statesmen.
I'll make you a deal -- you start showing some actual leadership on this issue. Start doing some research on the cost effectiveness, publishing the results, and using your offices as a serious bully pulpit to explain why the very spirit of America demands unhindered free speech on the Internet. You show that you understand why every step we have taken on digital copyright enforcement from the DMCA forward has been a direct violation of America's most sacred principles. You start trying to explain that to the populace, instead of just flapping in the breeze of popular emotionalism. You do that, then I'll stop thinking you are shameless opportunists who are only slightly less despicable on this particular issue than any of the other corrupt vermin in D.C.
Oh, and one more thing: You better make it clear that free speech means radical Muslims and American dissidents too. Everyone gets to speak, even if they are insane, evil, violent assholes.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Facts do make a lot of people angry.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Facts do make a lot of people angry.
They do me and I'm no better than anyone else - which also pisses me off because I want to be better than everyone else.
Anyway, I have been making a concerted effort to read and understand the "otherside" myself. As a result, I've become quite moderate - I no longer consider myself libertarian; although my social leanings are quite liberal.
But the thing that annoys me to no end is when I see folks parrot shit they heard or have seen in the electronic media.
"Obama's socialist policies are ruining America!!"
"Really? Which ones?", I ask.
Of course, I very rarely get a conherant answer.
On the other side, last night I heard about a Congressional testimony about Al-Qaeda and how it has become virtually nothing on a global scale and at least on a global scale, the threat of terrorism has declined dramatically. I couldn't help but "blame" Bush, Jr for that or at least getting the ball rolling.
being a moderate in America is very lonely.
Being an Atheirst Moderate means I have to live in a cave - with interent connectivity. I'm sub-leasing Bin Laden's.....
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how it's always "because the government knows better than you or your Doctor", but I never see "because the insurance company whose main purpose is to make as much profit as possible knows better than you or your Doctor"
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, you most certainly could change your insurance company.
Unless, of course, you wanted to change because you were dissatisfied with the way your current provider was dealing with your current condition.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Change your insurance company.
Yeah, right.
The vast majority of Americans get insurance through their employer, and could not possibly afford the employer subsidized premiums.
You're as locked in to your insurance as you fear you would be under a government plan.
You just have an illusion of choice.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)
This is not true. The Affordable Healthcare Act did not produce "Government run health care". It mandates that everyone must have health insurance, without expanding any of the state-run programs at all. This means the private insuance companies which lobbied for it make more money. No hospitals, other than those already run by the VA, have or will be taken over.
This is not socialist. Socialist would be full-on nationalization, like British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, British Coal, and British Rail prior to their privatization. There are no government-appointed board members on any corporate board that took bailout money.
What on earth are you talking about? First, what support of Unions, "specifically SEIU", that favors any union over the best interests of the country, and whose view of best interests?
;)
Second, do you have a problem with Unions - associations of people, of citizens, of wealth producers, organizing to protect their interests? Do you really think it's wrong for people to unite to protect their common interests? Do you have a problem with "We the people, in order to create a more perfect Union..."? In fact, to quote Lynne Cheney, why do you hate America?
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Go read on the GM loans. All the loans to banks. They've done funny math to say they've been repaid. In reality, they've not....
----
But as with Marchionne, Whitacre didn't tell the full story. The Obama administration -- through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- committed approximately $52.4 billion to help right GM.
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/may/26/are-auto-companies-paid-up-american-taxpayers/ [politifact.com]
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
SOPA would never have gotten out of committee without a majority of Repugs supporting it, it never would have gotten to the floor without John "Corruption Is My Middle Name" Boehner's support. THR conveniently leave that fact out of their reporting
SOPA never made it out of committee to the floor in the House. That's probably why THR didn't report any of that.
Facts are a terrible thing when they disagree with a liberal.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so; It looks to me like both parties are pretty damned sleazy here. Dems: "we have to support this because hollywood id paying us to." Repubs: "Hollywood is financing the Dems to pass this bill, so we must oppose it." Note they were for it until they realized opposing it was political gold.
A pox on both their houses. BTW, the opportunity to "mod" a submission is in the fiirehose.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we shocked that this was the reaction? I mean at least it was nice to have the opinion of the public hit the ears (or wallets) of our Congressmen and Senators and they actually did something with it. But I think we've known for a long time that most of the people in those chairs are more concerned with staying there instead of doing something "in the interest of the country and citizens."
Let's face it, they would have supported this thing right until the end without giving a single thought about the consequences beyond the cash flow from the people who tried to buy this through. This isn't a Rep/Dem issue except where they'll try to leverage it in the next election cycle. I still say kudos to the entire public effort to raise awareness, and I'll just take the small bit of good news that came from this effort to stop PIPA and SOPA. I know the war's not over by any stretch, but it was nice to be heard by our federal lawmakers.
Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree. I think it shows that they are pretty much the same. Republicans "listened" because they weighed the potential political gain to be greater than the risk.
Read mainstream press about anything involving the US government any more and you'll see that they don't skirt it - it's all about being elected, re-elected or gaining political leverage, apparently for it's own sake. Doing something with the military somewhere? Decisions based on strategy or national interest? No - they are based on political considerations. Setting fiscal policy. Is any of it based on anything other than if it helps or hurts your party? No.
This shows a lot more of the same going on.
Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the difference is that the Republican party is a divided party.
1 Part - entrenched political corporate interest and bourgeois.
1 Part - libertarian small government movement
1 Part - religious conservative
As such, it is often in more internal turmoil and conflict due to the divisions, but more likely to be pushed and changed on an issue due to the need of all three groups to support in opposition to the Democrat party which is over all more homogenous.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's True (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't live in the US and I don't go out of my way to keep track of the current presidential election - but from what I can see Obama should coast to victory. But honestly I see no difference. I think what happens in the public eye is a side show to keep people from dealing with reality.
It's going on all over the world - not just the US. The attention level is just higher because what the US does has such a high impact on so many other countries.
Re:It's True (Score:4, Interesting)
My personal exposure to international politics has been that American politics is pretty staid compared to some of what goes on world wide.
I think US politics get a lot of coverage because of US influence, because US media is so pervasive world wide and because it all happens in English.
If you want to talk about some crazy political theater - you should check out what is going on here in Hungary right now. It is off the wall. The thing is - none of the speeches or crazy stuff will make news in too many places. The impact outside Hungary is small and not very many people speak Hungarian. But we've got plenty of political folks that make US politicians look rather sedate.
And I don't think the media thing can be over stated. It's interesting as this story comes out of hollywood legislation. When I watch TV here - most of it is American shows dubbed over in Hungarian. When I buy dvds - they have options for Hungarian menus and subtitles/or dubbing but English is still there. When I listen to the radio or shop in stores, the music is far and away predominately American. That constant presence is what I think draws all the watchers.
The other way not so much. Malev, the state airline here shut down today. I have friends stranded in Paris and I doubt my friends in the US will ever hear about it.
Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's True (Score:4, Interesting)
Tea Party ... . As a generally conservative/libertarian group of people, we want LESS government intrusion and regulation of our lives
sure. unless they can force a theocracy onto the US.
Re:It's True (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Are you still trying to smear the Tea Party with that shit? It has nothing to do with their message. Neither does white supremacy or some of the other bullshit the press and some people have tried to associate them with. If it makes you feel better to make stuff up so you can demonize them, go ahead. Let me guess: you probably think OWS is the cat's meow, too.
Re:It's True (Score:5, Informative)
Then you obviously don't know much about American history.
We have been a generally very religious country since our founding days. It's worked out pretty well for us overall. Of course, we have had our issues, but it's almost always been religion (Christianity in particular) that has been at the forefront of fixing the issues.
Abolition of Slavery? Abilitionism started in Christian churches.
Women's Sufferage in the US? Started by Christian women (Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. Susan B. Anthony joined later, but was also a prominent Christian woman.)
Civil Rights? Movement led by Christian churches and one particular Baptist Minister (Dr. Martin Luther King.)
The only "bad" social movement that I can think of in US history attributed to Christians would be the Temperance movement that eventually led to Prohibition. Obviously that didn't last. Everything else has been positive, often overwhelmingly so.
So what is just so horrifying about a country founded and heavily influenced by a group of people who want us all to be free with equal rights?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Tea Party isn't a social conservative movem (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on how you mean it.
If you mean: freedom to be an Atheist, then yes. Absolutely. Freedom of Religion also means the freedom to be an Atheist or an Agnostic or simply not care one way or the other.
If you mean: Freedom from ever having to hear or be influenced by anyone else's religion and actively preventing religious people and politicians from acting upon their religious conscience or proposing laws in line with that conscience, (IE: Freedom FROM Religion) then no. That would mean impinging upon someone else's freedom of religion and freedom of expression and would be a violation of the Constitution.
Re:It's True (Score:5, Insightful)
Tea party hammered? LAST I saw it was national outrage spurred by the EFF and nerds. You Tea Party people were late to the game.
Where the hell were you and your members when the rest of us were screaming NO to it back in September and October?
The GOP did not Listen to you, they saw a giant mass of people angry about it and realized that in an election year it's stupid to piss everyone off. SOPA is "tabled" until everyone is distracted and it will pass quietly attached to a "limit puppy killing to two per day" law.
I am grateful that you guys finally got around to dealing with it, but dont you even think that you were the knights in shining armor. You were the horde that got in on it after the rest of us have been yelling about it for months.
Re:It's True (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, the Tea Party has issues with both the TSA & Patriot Act and has been the single largest voice of opposition.
As for Christianity, gay marriage, etc.
Well there are conservatives in the Tea Party movement who advocate for such. But most of the social agenda is off the table at Tea Party events.
Mention of God, faith may be applied but seldom moral objectives beyond "being good people".
In fact, most of the view points I've encountered is "why should ANYONE need a license from the government to get married? why is the government even involved?"