|
Internet activists take aim at legislators pushing SOPA
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 29 December, 2011
Now that their campaign against GoDaddy has convinced the world's largest domain registrar to back away from supporting SOPA, some Reddit members are turning their attention to unseating legislators whose support is keeping the bill alive.
To be sure, this effort is on an entirely different level than boycotting an Internet registrar, but Reddit's previous effort surely garnered them ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. December 2011 @ 00:00 |
Link to this message
|
It would be really great if people got behind such things more often...if doing something that was massively opposed by the public got you removed from office, the average congressional candidate would serve less than a month.
Quote:
Everyone on the left and right who is interested should pledge $10.00 per candidate, or $321.00. If that?s too much, just pledge $10.00.
LoL...so there are 32.1 candidates? Who is the 0.1?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
30. December 2011 @ 01:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its more like 1 candidate, with $311 'handling fee', they are still politicians after all.
|
Senior Member
|
30. December 2011 @ 04:27 |
Link to this message
|
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. December 2011 @ 05:52
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. December 2011 @ 05:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
Since it was the same politicians who set up the PAC system so that they can be bribed in a way that meets the requirements of the Supreme Court of the United States, it's very unlikely that a campaign based on persuasion (without a payoff) will make the least impression - but good luck anyway.
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
30. December 2011 @ 08:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by attar:
Since it was the same politicians who set up the PAC system so that they can be bribed in a way that meets the requirements of the Supreme Court of the United States, it's very unlikely that a campaign based on persuasion (without a payoff) will make the least impression - but good luck anyway.
The problem is not the PAC system per se, but rather the way it has been used since 1994 as a way to let donors write their own legislation. This article from 1995 gives a good example of the changes. It has since become standard operating procedure in Washington.
And keep in mind, it may have started with the Republicans, but it is by no means restricted to them now.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. December 2011 @ 08:32
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. December 2011 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by vurbal:
Originally posted by attar:
Since it was the same politicians who set up the PAC system so that they can be bribed in a way that meets the requirements of the Supreme Court of the United States, it's very unlikely that a campaign based on persuasion (without a payoff) will make the least impression - but good luck anyway.
The problem is not the PAC system per se, but rather the way it has been used since 1994 as a way to let donors write their own legislation. This article from 1995 gives a good example of the changes. It has since become standard operating procedure in Washington.
And keep in mind, it may have started with the Republicans, but it is by no means restricted to them now.
The problem is the PAC system per se...the fact that it exists means there is bribery...the fact that it was established means that everyone is OK with it...the fact that the people who run the government are allowed to make laws benefiting themselves (and do so) means they are not representatives of the people as they claim to be.
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
30. December 2011 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by vurbal:
Originally posted by attar:
Since it was the same politicians who set up the PAC system so that they can be bribed in a way that meets the requirements of the Supreme Court of the United States, it's very unlikely that a campaign based on persuasion (without a payoff) will make the least impression - but good luck anyway.
The problem is not the PAC system per se, but rather the way it has been used since 1994 as a way to let donors write their own legislation. This article from 1995 gives a good example of the changes. It has since become standard operating procedure in Washington.
And keep in mind, it may have started with the Republicans, but it is by no means restricted to them now.
The problem is the PAC system per se...the fact that it exists means there is bribery...the fact that it was established means that everyone is OK with it...the fact that the people who run the government are allowed to make laws benefiting themselves (and do so) means they are not representatives of the people as they claim to be.
Of course PACs don't cause bribery, and not all bribery comes from PACs now. Bribery is a "feature" of any and all governments, or any other system where people wield power others want influence over. Get rid of PACs and that money will simply come in via a different route.
The real issue here IMO is that we assume democracy means we can rely on the government. In fact it doesn't. Just as democracy is something which can only be attained by the demand of the people, it must be maintained in the same way. Since you can't eliminate corruption, the next best thing is to punish it severely enough to clean it up as much as possible.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
30. December 2011 @ 14:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
W T F!!! I have never seen such a goulash of deased rats & dead, decayed human flesh drawn over red coals to rolling boil & called an edible stew in my F-ing life as the last paragraph by a staff member in an attempt to stand at the top of the heap of "Right".
For F***Ks sake!!! Breathing causes bribery! Anyone jerkhole wanting ungainful advantage over another & using material wealth as a means to get is a freaking bribe. Spelling the word Broyhill and then telling a guy your name is pronounced Smith is asinine!!!
The PAC system is just another way of pitching a bribe to your favorite political figure & "here are the rules", served up with a smile. The jerk offs sing & dance in front of you because they have a fancy language & club you can't afford to attend or learn & it's just tough titties.
Low & behold, if you do figure it out, they will change the rules or you disappear (most times, figuratively speaking) in a blaze of scandal. Despite your guilt or innocence.
It's reflection has little to do with anyone's democracy. That can be obviously bought & sold like any other commodity.
|
Staff Member
2 product reviews
|
30. December 2011 @ 14:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
W T F!!! I have never seen such a goulash of deased rats & dead, decayed human flesh drawn over red coals to rolling boil & called an edible stew in my F-ing life as the last paragraph by a staff member in an attempt to stand at the top of the heap of "Right".
For F***Ks sake!!! Breathing causes bribery! Anyone jerkhole wanting ungainful advantage over another & using material wealth as a means to get is a freaking bribe. Spelling the word Broyhill and then telling a guy your name is pronounced Smith is asinine!!!
The PAC system is just another way of pitching a bribe to your favorite political figure & "here are the rules", served up with a smile. The jerk offs sing & dance in front of you because they have a fancy language & club you can't afford to attend or learn & it's just tough titties.
Low & behold, if you do figure it out, they will change the rules or you disappear (most times, figuratively speaking) in a blaze of scandal. Despite your guilt or innocence.
It's reflection has little to do with anyone's democracy. That can be obviously bought & sold like any other commodity.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just not seeing how any of it goes away if you get rid of PACs. The reason we have PACs in the first place was because there were already problems and they needed to establish a structure for making spending rules. Move those contributions out of PACs and they just go to less regulated or completely unregulated places instead. The government can't forbid people from pooling resources to lobby the or campaign for something or someone. It doesn't matter if you call it a PAC, a social club, a political party, or anything else.
There could be a partial solution, however if you restricted corporations separately. The problem is, thanks to an error by the Supreme Court decades ago (reading a court clerk's note as part of an actual decision), corporations are recognized as people by the courts. As long as corporations are treated as people it's impossible to truly regulate their lobbying activities because it would also limit actual people as well. Fix the corporations = people problem and you can regulate them separately.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
30. December 2011 @ 15:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Point taken. Facts are they don't need 'any' of these publicly recognized organizations to do anything they want. Any off shore account will do nicely.
Basically... Until those people that have taken elected public office literally have their asses to lose, they have nothing to promote their incentive to do a damn thing in any interest of anyone or anything. That's why nothing get's done. They don't care. There's nothing in it for them.
Bet if the cure for one of their dying kids was on the chopping block they'd put fire to their asses... But that's just a hunch.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. December 2011 @ 15:43
|
|
mickeywhite
Newbie
|
30. December 2011 @ 18:40 |
Link to this message
|
Why does Marsha Want Congress to Regulate the Internet? Why not just say NO FEDERAL branch (the FCC and congress and the federal courts included) has any authority to decide or rule on any aspect concerning the Internet?
BUT Marsha Blackburn did Vote FOR: Patriot Act Reauthorization, Electronic Surveillance, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening, Patriot Act extension; and only NOW she is worried about free speech, privacy, and government take over of the internet?
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
See her “blatantly unconstitutional” votes at :
mickeywhite blogspot com
Mickey
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. December 2011 @ 23:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by vurbal:
The real issue here IMO is that we assume democracy means we can rely on the government. In fact it doesn't. Just as democracy is something which can only be attained by the demand of the people, it must be maintained in the same way. Since you can't eliminate corruption, the next best thing is to punish it severely enough to clean it up as much as possible.
Actually, the problem is that we don't have a democracy at all. A democracy is when people vote on the issues at hand...that doesn't exist anywhere in spite of the fact that the digital revolution has made it a viable option. There is also something called representative democracy, where people vote for the representatives that vote on issues. The US had this once...but now all the "representatives" are part of the same 2-party system and they all have essentially the same goals and they are all bribed by the same people.
At least in Switzerland the people can override their representatives with actual democracy...this doesn't keep the government honest, but it does go a long way towards that goal. Something like SOPA might have a chance of passing there...but the people would just vote it out and that would be the end of it.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
31. December 2011 @ 11:57 |
Link to this message
|
Good point KB. I keep forgetting that the fine folks here at AD live in an entirely different country & have varying rules of government. Not necessarily better, but in some cases, better ways for their folks to call their politicians on their BS.
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
3. January 2012 @ 14:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
As of this year, the problem is even worse as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (from Jan 2010) now allows PACs to raise and spend unlimited amounts of corporate money to get whoever they want elected.
I disagree that companies are people and that they should be allowed to inject massive amounts of cash into our elections...but a packed Supreme Court decided otherwise.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
3. January 2012 @ 14:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
...but a packed Supreme Court decided otherwise.
Just goes to show that an Ivy League degree doesn't always declare the brightest individual for the job.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
caution232798
Newbie
|
5. January 2012 @ 08:05 |
Link to this message
|
you do realize if sopa happens at all they are actually taking peoples rights like freedom of speech and the american people can get a military cue going and guess what happens to legislation it goes bye bye because the military will fight for the rights of the people not what legislation is doing. and SOPA is a bunch of BS because it will never pass some of the legislation are against it already so good luck on passing the bill
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 5. January 2012 @ 08:12
|
