You appear to be under the heavily mistaken impression that the current state of the U.S. political system facilitates replacement of congressional representatives.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
SOPA hearing yesterday: There are not enough /facepalms in the world
- Thread starter pppppppppppppppppp
- Start date
If this bill passes, then I think Yahtzee said it best:
"THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!"
"THERE IS NO MIDDLE FINGER BIG ENOUGH!"
How the heck is this getting rushed through with so many sites, groups, and companies opposing it? I mean 4chan alone has members that could hack into and ruin every one of those politicians' computers. I heard one time a politician challenged the residents of 4chan's /B/ forum. Also known as the "B tards". They struck back with avengeance. They hacked his computer, they got his phone number and were harassing him and his family by phone, they stole his identity and ruined his credit by buying all this crap under his name, even took out some mortgages. It was great. The internet has a will of its own and you do not f*** with the internet, there will be consequences.
This is like when they tried to stop peer-to-peer filesharing. They found out VERY quickly that it's impossible. Once you close down one p2p like Napster, 50 million others show up. Torrent undermines the whole thing because then you're just hosting trackers not even the actual file on your site. Since this bill won't stop piracy, once this passes, people are going to pirate as much crap as they can just to show the government that they can't do sh*t.
This is like when they tried to stop peer-to-peer filesharing. They found out VERY quickly that it's impossible. Once you close down one p2p like Napster, 50 million others show up. Torrent undermines the whole thing because then you're just hosting trackers not even the actual file on your site. Since this bill won't stop piracy, once this passes, people are going to pirate as much crap as they can just to show the government that they can't do sh*t.
You're both wrong.renegade7 said:
First off, Obama is neither leftist nor particularly liberal, in any practical sense - he was elected on the premise of being both but in practice has worked out to be essentially the same politician as Bush Jr.. Also worth noting that the President has very little domestic power and Congress is a lot more important in that regard.
WRT to partisanship in general, the overall patterns of Congressional action show that the two sides are very similar in what they actually do (which can generally be summarized as "look out for their own interests and, consequently, the interests of the people paying them"). The healthcare reform situation is a very good example of this - a number of senators who were among the strongest supporters of a Single-Payer approach when there was no way for them to get it passed spontaneously and mysteriously changed their minds as soon as it became clear that there was a way to reduce the number of votes needed to pass it. It's very easy to say that you support something that your lobbyists don't like if both of you know that it won't happen.
Stop thinking about parties. For the time being the only significant changes we can make are at the state and local levels, because the people elected at those levels have legitimate and very significant power and are much less likely to be affected by corporate interests. Once a plurality of state governments (and, by some extension, the populace of those states) hold a particular position, Congress either faces a significant threat and changes some aspect of its tune, or eventually gets overruled by a constitutional amendment (ideally). Whether or not that will actually happen is another story, but approaching the fight this way rather than staying inside the boundaries of a system currently operated to PREVENT anti-corporate legislation will accomplish significantly less.
Not only is the vast majority of Congress too old to have grown up with internet (or even 24/7 television), but also they are too closed-minded to bother having a strong idea of what they're talking about.
([to self while crouching and holding legs]: This is just a phase. This is just a phase that America's going through.)
([to self while crouching and holding legs]: This is just a phase. This is just a phase that America's going through.)
As long as you're aware that it's very difficult not to vote these people back into place, it's fine. It just annoys me when people start criticizing progressive voters for the constant re-election the same senators and representatives when political victories in general are largely a matter of money (which favors incumbents over new prospects, since the incumbents have already interacted with major lobbying groups), and most states put Congress (and, by extension, their own congressmen) in charge of redrawing the voting districts (thereby enabling elected officials to "dilute" the areas that aren't likely to vote for them by cutting them up and mixing the pieces with areas that are - the practice is called "Gerrymandering"), further favoring incumbents.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
The president may not have a lot of power, but he still has the power of veto. So even if the bill passes in congress, the president can refuse to sign it into law. And even if it does get signed into law, the Supreme Court is going to take one look at SOPA and respond with "what is this? ...I don't even".
Brief explanation:Megumi0505 said:
Groups that want SOPA: Large corporations who stand to benefit from any improvements in how copyrights can be enforced; large corporations who are currently worried (to whatever extent) about the role that the internet is playing in the organization of protests against their presence in government.
Groups that don't want SOPA: Google, plus a large number of extras who aren't wealthy enough to buy congressional representation.
Also, you generally don't have to worry too much about your credit rating or personal finances in general when the credit/finance sector has a vested interest in your wellbeing.
The games companies are retards, people streaming demos of their games on the internet helps them by getting people interested in their games. Roms are awesome for getting copies of games that just don't exist anywhere else. I mean seriously, what GameStop is going to be selling the original Nintendo? And now Viacom's networks are running false and misleading ads in favor of the bill...it's just so much epic fail, we need something more powerful than a facepalm.
Besides, most piraters aren't making money off the crap they pirate, they just do it for the hell of it. I find it hilarious the only thing this bill neither hurts nor protects, is porn XD
Besides, most piraters aren't making money off the crap they pirate, they just do it for the hell of it. I find it hilarious the only thing this bill neither hurts nor protects, is porn XD
Firstly, Congress can override a veto. This is one of the reasons that Obama's refusal to veto the NDAA in its current state is completely meaningless - it's going to pass either way, and vetoing it would be political suicide given how many people still believe that America is under any manner of military threat. In the NDAA's case, it makes little sense for him to veto it either way because he's been pushing for expansion of powers in much the same way Bush did, but the point stands.Megumi0505 said:
Secondly, go and look at the people currently sitting on the Supreme Court - or, more importantly, who appointed how many of them. Even if Obama WERE of an anti-corporatist bent - which he isn't - the majority of the justices were appointed by Ronald Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. - three presidents who were essentially defined by corporatism and neonconservatism.
We're talking about the court responsible for Citizens United here (i.e. allowed for corporate financial investment in politics to reach heights such that SOPA could get serious congressional support in the first place) here. The odds of them overturning the very legislation that CU makes possible are very, very slim.
Ah yes, I forgot about that, congress is run by the corporations with money and they won't even give a voice to the opponents. Democracy? What's that? Congress obviously has no clue...
I had no clue about any of that, now the future looks grim, but since the bill won't actually stop Priacy, I guess I'll just sit back, watch the internet die, and the people rioting in the streets because they can't update their Facebook status. While I get to the blocked sites and download the content anyways because DNS blocking is easily circumvented if you have the site's IP address. Or better yet watch as millions of pirate bay esque sites pop up.jonnosferatu said:
This is a game of whack-a-mole you can't possibly win so why try?
Sopa will be a deathblow to the American economy.
Any company that has it's core business tied in with the Internet will have to worry about another, private(?) entity possibly taking down it's website.
That is unacceptable for any company. They bigger ones will leave to set up shop elswhere if they can and survive that and the smaller ones die out, taking many jobs with it.
and even when they do conform to this law, it will hamper their promotion capabilities and thus their growth.
Any company that has it's core business tied in with the Internet will have to worry about another, private(?) entity possibly taking down it's website.
That is unacceptable for any company. They bigger ones will leave to set up shop elswhere if they can and survive that and the smaller ones die out, taking many jobs with it.
and even when they do conform to this law, it will hamper their promotion capabilities and thus their growth.