> Though the administration's chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy
Funny that this Freudian slip has shown up in more than one SOPA article.
SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
81–90 of 101 posts
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#82Now we need a way to get rid of Lamar Smith (R-TX). That SOB is just an idiot waiting to happen. Again.
I can't believe this guy is representing part of Austin, where many web-based companies are located. I have to wonder why he authored the bill.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
That requires a lot from the President and oftentimes they'll be on the losing end of that political battle. On the recently-passed NDAA for example (which explicitly made it legal to detain people without trial, and hopefully will be struck down by the courts), it was passed as part of funding the military, sending out soldier paychecks, etc. Fox News is already (wrongly) accusing Obama of wanting to undermine our t…
Obama originally objected to the NDAA because it limited his powers too much, not because of the indefinite detention clause. The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation f…
What? Break it down for me here, in what way is he arguing for more quote "powers"? The power to not indefinitely detain people? That's a really brutal one, favorite of dictators everywhere. I shudder at the thought of someday being not-detained.
I mean, I really don't want to carry Obama's water on this one given that he did sign the bill, but you're just engaged in some sort of silly deliberate misinterpretation of the paragraph you quoted.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have the EFF[1]. Maybe we should consider donating to it. [1]: https://www.eff.org/helpout
I donate $20/month. And they're a US 501(c)(3) organization so my donation comes off my taxes. Win win.
I've been meaning to ask someone this: do you mean that your return (if you receive a return) would be an additional $20, or that you are taxed as though you made $20 less? Sorry if this is elementary or too off-topic.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#85Now we need a way to get rid of Lamar Smith (R-TX). That SOB is just an idiot waiting to happen. Again.
I can't believe this guy is representing part of Austin, where many web-based companies are located. I have to wonder why he authored the bill.
Lamar Smith is a grade-A Republican shitheel who just worries about who or what has contributed to his campaign slush fund. It would appear that freedom of speech, to him, is something that should be paid for by the highest bidder. The level of ignorance this man has shown by authoring this bill and the amount of selling out he's done to corporate interests, rather than the people he ostensibly represents, is staggering.
Unfortunately, the Texas Legislature has gerrymandered the state so badly that he's dug in like tick and will be difficult to remove.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be a way for the people to veto a law in a referendum, like in Switzerland. That way politicians would be more cautious passing laws which they know that the public probably won't like and probably will veto. The current US system only provides "checks and balances" between political parties, so when one party cracks up (meaning, gets bought by special interests and turns against the people) we only can…
That hasn't worked super well in California, from many accounts.
Having referendums only to reject laws would fix many of the difficulties. No new spending should come from referendum.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We know this, yet there is not much that can be done about it. Aside from the obvious, running for Senate and using your vote, what can be done to stop it? Someone with the right amount of money and enough motivation can pass just about anything, given enough time.…
Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats I don't think that was their tactic. I believe they intended to get the bills passed pretty much the way they wrote them (with, of course, the canonical juggling that goes on in these things). "Screaming from the sideline" was, in fact, effective. I'm just not comfortable using it as a long-term strategy. We do need strong organi…
I don't think that was their tactic.
Sure, they (Hollywood) would be happy if SOPA passed unaltered, but that's always the tactic: propose a door-in-the-face bill, shift the Overton window a bit, pass a foot-in-the-door law. It happens over and over.
Example: Do you think they could have passed a 40 year copyright extension in the 1970s? Instead, they passed two ~20 year extensions, one in 1976, one in 1998.
Example 2: SOPA and PIPA would have been unimaginable in 1998. Instead, they got the DMCA, which was merely unacceptable. Now, they push SOPA and PIPA hard, expecting to pass some watered-down version, and driving web site owners to extol the DMCA they vociferously opposed in 1998.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We know this, yet there is not much that can be done about it. Aside from the obvious, running for Senate and using your vote, what can be done to stop it? Someone with the right amount of money and enough motivation can pass just about anything, given enough time.…
If the president were to have the line-item veto, where he could approve of certain parts of a bill and veto others, we could hold him personally responsible whenever bills get loaded up like this. As it is, they can pass what they want and nobody is responsible. That's clearly not the way the system was designed to work. The entire purpose of representative democracies is that while representatives can freely vote a…
Wasn't the line item veto passed into law but ruled unconstitutional during the Clinton administration? In any case, this argument is predicated on the idea that we can trust the president, which is an idea the most recent couple of presidencies should have disabused us of.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
What scares me most is the fact that everyone knows this tactic. Write an absurd policy, debate it, offer an alternative and jam it down citizens throats. We know this, yet there is not much that can be done about it. Aside from the obvious, running for Senate and using your vote, what can be done to stop it? Someone with the right amount of money and enough motivation can pass just about anything, given enough time.…
Do we need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing uncensored internet access?
We already had one, I thought.
Re: SOPA 'shelved' until consensus is found
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I donate $20/month. And they're a US 501(c)(3) organization so my donation comes off my taxes. Win win.
I've been meaning to ask someone this: do you mean that your return (if you receive a return) would be an additional $20, or that you are taxed as though you made $20 less? Sorry if this is elementary or too off-topic.
I'm pretty sure that $20 is not taxed. So, you're taxed as through you made $20 less.