71–80 of 100 posts
MPAA "lobbying" the VP of US, and then the VP ordering the shutdown of a company from another country on behalf of MPAA (illegally it seems, from recent news). I think this would be called "corruption" in any other country but US.
It most certainly is called corruption by the people of the US.... Im as an American am both ticked at Biden, and happy that this sort of thing is coming to light due to the Dotcom political thriller.
The striking thing to me about the MU shutdown was the timing right after the defeat of SOPA. It was like the government wanted to teach "the people" a lesson for getting too uppity. Like "Oh, you think we can't shut down your websites just because we don't have this little law that you rose up against? Well watch this." With all the political uproar that was going on that week it would be surprising if the FBI had n…
That's very paranoid. Occam's razor, my friend. They were probably going to do this anyway with timing being a coincidence. People give the US government too much credit for planning devious things. Most of it is a lot of fuck-ups and political favors. Nothing more. I sincerely doubt the Feds did this as so to give the finger to protesters. They've been doing this long before SOPA was introduced and will continue too…
There is a contradiction there perhaps. Political favors includes buckling due to lobbying. Then US govt. is just a proxy for large banking interests, the military industrial complex, pharmaceuticals, large agribusiness etc. So no the govt. might not have really cared about MU but maybe MPAA cared and when they care they line pockets and make promises about future rewards
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"the second most powerful office in the country". We are talking about the vice presidency here, correct?
I admit, that was a poor choice of words. How about second most visible, or second most prestigious? My point was that it's an enviable position, not least of which because it's a great stepping stone to becoming president. Actual political power aside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the speculations of a sleezy businessman like Dotcom regarding the integrity of the Vice President is unworthy of consideration. Textbook ad hominem. His business practices are completely irrelevant to the questions of impropriety raised and the illegal conduct of the authorities involved.
Ad Hominem applies to facts and reproducible reasoning. It does not apply to mere slander. Name one serious question of illegal conduct raised by Dotcom.
Furthermore, "Kim Dotcom is a $negative_thing" is an adhom no matter how you slice it, when the question is "Do his claims have any merit". He could be a mother-stabbing father-raper, claims are still supposed to be evaluated on their merit, not their speaker!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not corruption if he didn't personally benefited from it. The problem is that if your only source of information is biased, you take the wrong decisions.
I'd say reelection to the second most powerful office in the country is a pretty compelling personal benefit. The fine line usually placed in the US between corruption and politics as normal is that of the quid pro quo; it's fine to take money from people who happen to share your beliefs, but if you change your votes because of that money, it's corruption. Politicans have always hidden behind the plausible deniabilit…
I don't get why this is any more of a problem than money in politics in general. If you give money based on how much you support a politician, and they change their positions, and now you agree less, you don't give them money anymore.
What's the alternative?
"If you've ever given money to a politician, you have to keep doing so even if they change their minds about the issues you care about"?
"Politicians are legally forbidden from changing their mind, even in the face of cogent arguments and massive disagreement from their constituents"?
"Giving money and stopping giving money based on a politician's stances are fine but SSSHHHH don't talk about it!"?
MPAA "lobbying" the VP of US, and then the VP ordering the shutdown of a company from another country on behalf of MPAA (illegally it seems, from recent news). I think this would be called "corruption" in any other country but US.
Establish that, then you have corruption - in the U.S. and everywhere else in the world.
It seems at least as plausible that they were there to discuss ACTA, which was signed three months later. Beside, it wasn't the Executive branch that ordered the Megaupload shutdown: it was the grand jury, followed by an Australian judge (apparently improperly.) Mr. Dotcom doesn't appear understand the US legal system. Or, more likely, he is willfully ignoring it in favor of a story. Given the lack of evidence that t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say reelection to the second most powerful office in the country is a pretty compelling personal benefit. The fine line usually placed in the US between corruption and politics as normal is that of the quid pro quo; it's fine to take money from people who happen to share your beliefs, but if you change your votes because of that money, it's corruption. Politicans have always hidden behind the plausible deniabilit…
>unless the Obama administration tows the line [2]. It' toes. You toe a line. You put your toe up to the line and stay within that line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>unless the Obama administration tows the line [2]. It' toes. You toe a line. You put your toe up to the line and stay within that line.
either that, or you have a rope, or "line", attached to something heavy, such as a barge on a canal, and you have to help "tow the line" to get the cargo moving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say reelection to the second most powerful office in the country is a pretty compelling personal benefit. The fine line usually placed in the US between corruption and politics as normal is that of the quid pro quo; it's fine to take money from people who happen to share your beliefs, but if you change your votes because of that money, it's corruption. Politicans have always hidden behind the plausible deniabilit…
> The cracks are starting to show in this veneer of innocence, with Chris Dodd earlier this year directly threatening to withhold donations based on SOPA, unless the Obama administration toes the line [2]. I don't get why this is any more of a problem than money in politics in general. If you give money based on how much you support a politician, and they change their positions, and now you agree less, you don't give…
Politicians' campaign spending is strictly limited by law: