SOPA Drama Creates ESA Rival, the League For Gamers

[exfileme]

Gamers now have a voice in Washington: the League For Gamers.

SOPA Drama Creates ESA Rival, the League For Gamers : Read more

 

[AznCracker]

If they pass the bill, I hope there will be a clean sweep of the house next election.

 

[Trueno07]

That would be nice even if doesn't pass.

 

[g00fysmiley]

[citation][nom]azncracker[/nom]If they pass the bill, I hope there will be a clean sweep of the house next election.[/citation]


I'd like to see a clean sweep of any member who supported this legislation to begin with while also seeing it not pass. I know I looke dup my officials who signed on it and will be voting for thier replacment come november

 

[harrkev]

Ummm. Why not just send the money to the EFF?

 

[kinggraves]

It continues to amaze me how all these "associations" completely ignore the wishes of their actual members in favor of their own agendas and yet still exist. This is EXACTLY what needs to happen, if you feel the association that's meant to protect you is failing then pull your support from it and form a new one. They have zero power without any voices backing them up. You do not exist to serve them, THEY exist to serve you.

This is not an issue that will be resolved with changes in Congress, even though it helps sometimes to remind them they ARE elected officials. This issue won't be resolved until groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and ESA are wiped out and replaced by groups that actually exist to support their members and not just their own gains or the gains of a few major players.

 

[classzero]

[citation][nom]azncracker[/nom]If they pass the bill, I hope there will be a clean sweep of the house next election.[/citation]

Don't just limit it to the House. The House is created SOPA, while the Senate created PIPA.

So you should change your statement to "Re-elect No One!"

 

[JasonAkkerman]

I admit it: I use to pirate a lot of the games I played. Since Steam has come along I have not pirated a single game. I have over 200 games on my steam account, mostly from independent developers.

I don't feel the need to pirate any more. I just wait for games to go on sale!

 

[Guest]

amusingly, the NRA might not be the best organization to model oneself after. there have been polls taken which shows that the NRA continues to argue against tighter firearm point-of-sale controls when a majority of its membership in fact supports tougher legislation

 

[nottheking]

I'm tired of seeing all these "we need to vote out EVEYRONE in Congress;" we saw in 2010 what that mentality got us: the worst Congress ever. (which yes, was also the "freshest" Congress ever)

This needs to be clarified: simply vote out everyone who's corrupt enough to actually vote for and/or support SOPA/PIPA. That way we can keep some of the more reasonable members of Congress, and get rid of all the crazies who actually think Censorship of this scale is actually a good idea.

Though all told, I'd settle for even just an example made of SOPA & PIPA's main sponsors. This will be a bit of a hard sell: Texas Republican Lamar Smith, SOPA's main sponsor in the House, is a long-tenure Representative who's managed to hold on since the 1980s, back when Texas was actually a bastion of Democrats. Unfortunately, his district's been Gerrymandered three times since then, making it increasingly safe for him; his vote total has typically been in the 60-80% range.

Similarly, I recall that Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy is the main sponsor of PIPA in the Senate. Likewise, he's in a very safe spot, so seeing him out would be hard; the state is all but an invincible fortress for the Democrats, contrary to neighboring New Hampshire, (in)famous for its swing-state nature.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Need to start a clean sweep starting with the White House and work our way down. Regardless of this bogus bill.[/citation]

They shouldn't even have gotten it this far. Obama should have flat out told them he'd Veto it and whipped his party into line behind him. But then that's the Obama advertised in his campaign, not the Obama we actually got. Please not another 4 years of Bush Lite.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]They shouldn't even have gotten it this far. Obama should have flat out told them he'd Veto it and whipped his party into line behind him. But then that's the Obama advertised in his campaign, not the Obama we actually got. Please not another 4 years of Bush Lite.[/citation]
Sadly, Obama waffled and took a VERY soft approach, merely letting some of his aides write a weak blog post suggesting people "work together;" while it noted that no law should restrict the freedom and privacy online, and especially notes problems with anything that'd tamper with DNSes like SOPA does, but stops short of condemning anything that includes it, or including any threat of veto.

As for anyone else... We've got Romney, a businessman worth $100,000,000US+, and flip-flops so much on any issue to whatever benefits big cartels like the MPAA, RIAA, and ESA, and Newt Gingrich, who caught a lot of controversy over his multi-million fees for his lobbying services; neither arch-extremist Rick Santorum or libertarian Ron Paul stand any chance of winning the nomination at this rate. We're pretty much screwed no matter what. I think it's better to try and make an example of the most vocal members of Congress, so that the President, whoever they are, would get the clue.

 

[sseyler]

I am almost hoping SOPA/PIPA pass... if legislation as regressive and unconstitutional as these two bills actually come into effect, I can hardly imagine the kind of outrage that would ensue: perhaps that outrage would be so immense that current American politics will suffer a huge blow to its corporate and lobbyist foundations.

Maybe something as outrageous as SOPA is needed to spark sweeping changes to the American political system... just my two cents.

 

[mugiebahar]

why don't anonymous group go after all the house reps and senators that are behind this, along with mpaa, riaa, and all the others. I would rather they target them then sony (not saying sony didn't deserve it) but these idiots need a real wake up call. And i can think of non better then their personal info on the web for all to see. What you guys think?

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]They shouldn't even have gotten it this far. Obama should have flat out told them he'd Veto it and whipped his party into line behind him. blahblahblah.[/citation]

Apparently you missed the article where Obama did just that. He has already stated that he would veto the bill if it got to his desk. In fact, the Toms article covering it is filled with +1's and thumbs up for Obama.

You didn't get the memo apparently. Sadly this has happened a lot with Obama. He does a lot of great things but since people got their heads stuck up Fox new's ass they can't see anything he does. It's just the kind of guy Obama is, he's a compromising kind of person. He takes an issue and tries to find a good middle ground to be fair to both sides of the argument.

Is he perfect? No, but he's one of the best president's we've ever had in US history.

Would I prefer a more liberal President? Sure, I'd love a solid atheist, liberal, pro choice, middle class supporting guy to lead this country to a golden age of science and reason. Is that ever going to happen? I won't hold my breath.

Bottom line is to get your facts about Obama and his administration from non biased sources and make up your own mind if he's the right kind of president for you. Stop being a damn Fox news drone.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]Apparently you missed the article where Obama did just that. He has already stated that he would veto the bill if it got to his desk. In fact, the Toms article covering it is filled with +1's and thumbs up for Obama.You didn't get the memo apparently. Sadly this has happened a lot with Obama. He does a lot of great things but since people got their heads stuck up Fox new's ass they can't see anything he does.[/citation]
No, this isn't about Fox News, but simply the fact that Obama never threatened to veto SOPA/PIPA. He threatened to veto both the NDAA of 2012 (before it was modified to remove dangerous parts) as well as threatening a veto of any Congressional attempt to repeal the FCC's new Net Neutrality rules.

However, he never directly stated he'd attempt to veto SOPA or PIPA. As I noted above, the White House response was much weaker: not only was there no suggestion that his veto would be employed, it took a more conciliatory attitude, outright suggesting that SOPA's opponents were just as bad as its backers, but it wasn't even put out with Obama's name on it.

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]It's just the kind of guy Obama is, he's a compromising kind of person. He takes an issue and tries to find a good middle ground to be fair to both sides of the argument.[/citation]
Being a compromising person is really not good for someone in Obama's place. He's running the risk of being recorded in history as "the President without any balls." His heart's in the right place, but he's not being aggressive enough. SOPA/PIPA is another strong case of this: rather than standing and denouncing it, he's hidden behind some of his aides who've written a blog post about the "need for both sides to work things out."

I'm betting that once things take their course, and assuming that SOPA/FIFA inevitably get defeated, Obama will come in and announce his opposition to the bills at the last minute, too late for it to have any impact, but in time to take some credit for it, when both he and America would be better off if he came out swinging right now: coupled with the attention from the blackouts, that would certainly be sufficient to permanently sink the bills.

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]Is he perfect? No, but he's one of the best president's we've ever had in US history. Would I prefer a more liberal President? Sure, I'd love a solid atheist, liberal, pro choice, middle class supporting guy to lead this country to a golden age of science and reason. Is that ever going to happen? I won't hold my breath.Bottom line is to get your facts about Obama and his administration from non biased sources and make up your own mind if he's the right kind of president for you. Stop being a damn Fox news drone.[/citation]
Well, my money says that Obama's already an atheist; half of the top 1% of the socio-economic ladder, (the so-called "1%," of which yes, even Obama is part of) when interviewed, reveals themselves to be atheist or agnostic. Yet coincidentally, Congress (made up entirely of this segment of society) has yet to have a single admitted atheist over the past few decades, in spite of having had thousands of different members across that time span.

As for one of the "best presidents ever?" Even Obama's own description of his score still remains at "incomplete." And I'm sure even an ardent liberal such as yourself might be cautious in ranking Obama already among the likes of FDR, JFK, LBJ, and so forth.

 

[Guest]

@airborne11b I do look up a lot of non-biased news sources and still can't stand obama....he is far from one of the best presidents ever...his opposition to sopa is about the first thing he has done that I supported...I don't have a clue who I am voting for this year as honestly no one is worth voting for...I don't want to vote just because of one or two things someone supports or I would almost refuse to vote for anyone who supports abortion (and I am agnostic)...but I know I have to put my personal thoughts aside and try to find the person who can best run the country...

Bottom line is don't assume everyone who dislikes Obama is a fox news drone...I don't watch fox news, cnn, or any other televised news source.

 

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]kubelik[/nom]amusingly, the NRA might not be the best organization to model oneself after. there have been polls taken which shows that the NRA continues to argue against tighter firearm point-of-sale controls when a majority of its membership in fact supports tougher legislation[/citation]
The NRA believes that any form of gun control directly violates the 2nd amendment. Too bad they've never actually read the constitution...

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd amendment was never intended to give every wack job in the country the right to own a gun, In fact, nowhere in the amendment does it give anyone the expressed right to own a gun. Based on the wording, the 2nd amendment simply supplies people the right to possess weapons for the purpose of maintaining an organized militia (state military - now the national guard). The NRA actually fought against banning the mentally ill from owning firearms....yep, they definitely have people's best interest in mind....

 

[10tacle]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]Apparently you missed the article where Obama did just that. ...Sadly this has happened a lot with Obama. He does a lot of great things but since people got their heads stuck up Fox new's ass they can't see anything he does. It's just the kind of guy Obama is, he's a compromising kind of person. He takes an issue and tries to find a good middle ground to be fair to both sides of the argument. Is he perfect? No, but he's one of the best president's we've ever had in US history. Would I prefer a more liberal President? Sure, I'd love a solid atheist, liberal, pro choice, middle class supporting guy to lead this country to a golden age of science and reason. Is that ever going to happen? I won't hold my breath.Bottom line is to get your facts about Obama and his administration from non biased sources and make up your own mind if he's the right kind of president for you. Stop being a damn Fox news drone.[/citation]

1) Obama waffled based upon the political winds like Clinton. He did nothing up front, like the captain of that sinking cruise ship off the small island of Italy.

2) Obama has compromised on NOTHING. Obamacare, Canada pipeline, jobs bill (rammed with Congressional Democrat crap), and the shareholders of the bailed out US auto companies.

3) Most of America is NOT atheist, and NOT liberal.

4) Take your MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, and Jon Stewart education elsewhere.

Thanks.

 

[gamerk316]

The 2nd amendment was never intended to give every wack job in the country the right to own a gun, In fact, nowhere in the amendment does it give anyone the expressed right to own a gun. Based on the wording, the 2nd amendment simply supplies people the right to possess weapons for the purpose of maintaining an organized militia (state military - now the national guard). The NRA actually fought against banning the mentally ill from owning firearms....yep, they definitely have people's best interest in mind....

Even worse, the Supreme Court has already ruled, on numerous occasions, that certain types of "arms" my be banned [brass knuckles, etc]. So my question is a simple one: Why should one form of weaponry be banned, yet another untouchable?

1) Obama waffled based upon the political winds like Clinton. He did nothing up front, like the captain of that sinking cruise ship off the small island of Italy.

Aside from the fastest job turnaround in US history:
January 2009: Jobs lost: -750,000
January 2011: Jobs gained: 285,000

Coincidentally, the minute Democrats lost the house, job gains tumbled back down below 100,000 thousand again.

Also note, the private sector ahs been in positive territory for 24 months and counting; its public sector job cuts that are driving unemployment. So all those Republicans who talk about shrinking government? They are the ones causing unemployment right now.

So take your political stuff elsewhere.