[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]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.[/citation]
to be honest, the mpaa and riaa both do what their benefactors want, its only the esa that isn't listening to who it represents. artists alone arent represented by the riaa, its the labels that are. is there any riaa label that doesn't support sopa or the protect ip? and if their are is their more than a 50% divide in the wealth between the labels?
you know, when companies post record profits, i want to know how piracy "hurts" them, apposed to it just being a known, borderline unavoidable factor.
[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]
because those regulations do nothing to deture people who will commit a crime and just effect, cause more of a hassle, cost more for the legit consumer. you think just because its illegal to get a gun and kill someone that it will stop people form getting a gun and killing someone.
lets take this in a less drastic way than sopa.
what if it got to the point that you had to register all your digital content to a single drm scheme, would you do it or want it?
lets say that drm scheme got cracked, and now you have to upgrade or switch at a cost to you, or its illegal.
lets say that they anticipate the crack on a 6month to yearly basis, and whether its been cracked or not, you have to pay a small (to them) 75$ fee for a new hardware drm modual and re register all your software every time, and if you dont one time, and skip a gen, you no longer have the rights to said software and have to re purchase it.
meanwhile anyone getting the software illegal, doesn't have to put up with that crap.
let me put it this way, a background check and a waiting period is what all gun people accept.
in the software world, that is like a cd key. except now we have to be online all the time, register that cd key for one account, cant transfer the game to another person without them having to to crack the game and they cant play online at all.
you have to appose every new legislation to the bitter end otherwise people become complacent and more outrageous things get passed later on. i believe the dmca to be to far reaching, and easily abused, taking away rights that we had before in favor of a tighter grip on copyright material. under the dmca its illegal to make a backup of media you purchase if a drm has to be cracked, prior to this, you could make a backup of whatever you wanted, for personal use.
and more to the point, dmca is abused on a daily basis at places like youtube where a clip in the background has a tv show, and the video isn't about it, but it gets a take down notice. this law would put people in prison for the same offense.
i got off on a bit of a tangent there.
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]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.[/citation]
there is a picture, i dont know how true it is, but i love the idea, elected officials have to ware stickers of who they get money from like NASCAR have stickers for sponsors. here i found the image
http
/libertyposter.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/composite41.png
like i said i dont know how true that image is, but i love the idea it has.
[citation][nom]mugiebahar[/nom]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?[/citation]
because we the people dont see them as evil in all cases, but the elected officials see them as terrorists on the internet that need to be... well... killed.
[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. 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]
you dont get it, there is no true war going on that needs to be fought... terror isnt a war, its more of a reactive strike, and its a war that people waver over because its long, drawn out, and doesnt effect them at all, and cant see a ground work that is trying to be built. in times like these, our government plays a bigger dick contest with each other, where the republicans vote no on everything a democrat says and vice versa, for no real reason besides "they said it, so eff em"
that is how our crappy government works. i would prefer a democratic dictatorship if that could ever exist, where its one man, some advisers, everything gets done fast, not bureaucratically with the rules in one hand and... you know where im going with this. it would be nice if that could work and not elect someone corrupt, but that wont ever happen.
obama doesnt make concessions to make them happy, but to get though legislation that NEEDS to get though but they are being douches about passing any of it.
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]The NRA believes that any form of gun control directly violates the 2nd amendment. Too bad they've never actually read the constitution...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....[/citation]
wow, never thought that i would see someone who actually gets confused by the commas in real life....
when that was signed they were fighting an over bearing government, and won, do you REALLY thing that they wrote that with the thoughts that only militias get guns? they knew a day would come when WE THE PEOPLE would have to fight for our rights and one of the bigger factors in laws that truly oppress us never get passed because WE THE PEOPLE have weapons.
and i said above, take one thing away at a time, i don't care how big or small it is, and you will get complacency
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]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?Aside from the fastest job turnaround in US history:January 2009: Jobs lost: -750,000January 2011: Jobs gained: 285,000Coincidentally, 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.[/citation]
reactionary fear, thats all there is to it. people allow the bans because they believe that they are safer with them. take a switch blade, a ballistic knife, and so on, what real threat do they pose? but people are afraid of them, so they get the bans in place. some places even outlawed butterfly knives... they are KNIVES if i want to kill someone with a knife i have a full tang butcher knife in my kitchen i can use, and dump fairly easily, where as a butterfly knife, ballistic knife, or a switch blade, i would think twice before getting rid of them. realistically, more people keep those knives on them and wouldn't ditch them, making them easier to catch. but because those knife types are intimidating, they are against the law.
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]It's actually up to the US Supreme Court to rule what the actual meaning of the US Constitution is. And in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, they did, in fact, rule exactly opposite of what you claimed: the Second Amendment DOES, in fact, grant individuals the right to own a firearm irrespective of their association with any given militia.By the same token, you're every bit as off-center as airborne11b, AND managing to be far more offensive about it. To address some of your points here:1. You're pretty correct on this part: Obama's shown a lack of resolve to be aggressive.2. "Obamacare" is, in fact, very compromised. Conservatives such as yourself like to scream about how it spells doom and gloom, when, a couple years after enactment, it curiously hasn't done so... And why might that be? In part, it was watered-down beyond all recognition. It's toothless, (yes, that much-harped "mandate" clause is likewise toothless once you understand the language of it) and doesn't include any of the serious changes that were proposed to fundamentally change the health insurance industry. It didn't even included the mildest (and most free market) solution, an nationwide insurance exchange; it got removed because insurance companies saw it too much a threat to their regionalized monopolies, and lobbied Congress fervently.3. There is no majority belief in America. The largest segment, Protestant Christians, only makes up some 40-50%. Once you split the (very different) evangelicals (primarily Southern Baptist and LDS) out, it becomes an even smaller plurality, compared to the 20-25% who are Catholic, and the 15-20% who are Atheist. Similarly, while a majority isn't liberal in America, a majority isn't conservative, either: you forget all us moderates here.4. Was there even a point attempted here? Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a news source. And using the term "education" is rather snide in this context, as well as implying an extreme anti-intellectual bent.[/citation]
i dont watch it enough, but jon stewart takes a real issue, points out key flaws in a comedic way, but at the end of the day, is still more or less news, but condensed to what matters.
tell me how that isnt news with bullet points, at the very least it informs people better than fox news does.
/libertyposter.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/composite41.png
Facebook
Twitter