34 replies to this topic

[Thilk09]

Pegasauru, it's all good that you understand that SOPA has rapidly lost its support, but that reminds me of what Lin brought up about PIPA (thanks Lin for reminding me that the stupid bill still exists in limbo temporarily). Why would he bring that up? Well, here's my $100 on what the media companies are actually planning with SOPA and PIPA given that they had no buffer on keeping their pirating/child porn trafficking acts secret.

Because if I understand the media companies's logic, that would mean that they intend for the SOPA to take all the shots it needs to fall down, then PASS the PIPA act on January 24th via a cloture vote initiated by one senator named Reids. Seriously, why was there no buffer between CBS and C|Net if nothing else than to make sure that was solely put on SOPA and not PIPA to ensure that the cloture vote goes into secret as was planned?

Yes, you heard me right, guys, they intend for a cloture vote on January 24th for PIPA. What that means is if the vote has the needed amount it needs to happen, then the process is that the PIPA bill gets to bypass the whole process of House -> Judiciary committee -> Senate voting and go STRAIGHT INTO OBAMA'S HAND. And it's happening because of lobbying like the earlier attempt that was supposed to happen with SOPA.

And I don't exactly trust that Obama will veto the PIPA bill either, given that he has a history of being pro-business with his voting as Senate. So I would right now put PIPA together with SOPA if you guys want to take down both bills together so we do not have to worry about being fucked over.

Given that the evidence that Mike dug up correlates to both the PIPA and SOPA supporters though (seriously, helping pirates for the simple logic of profiting via saving bandwith AND trafficking child porn? What?) and also affects both bills (because both are essentially the same bullshit no matter what), that means we just have to bring PIPA to the public attention on the same level as the public if we want to also shoot PIPA down. I would find a petition for PIPA that is trustworthy, and spread the words that PIPA is going to get a cloture vote on Jan. 24th. I mention bringing the PIPA bill up on the same level as SOPA, because as that bill stands, it IS relatively unknown. And that's a VERY GOOD REASON to get everyone's attention on PIPA just like what is happening right now with SOPA right now if we want to end any chances that PIPA has of passing as well.

(I'll apologize if the grammar seems a bit poor, because I was born deaf and grew up learning a mix of English and ASL.)

[peregrin]

pegasaurus, on 24 December 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

I'd like to know a bit more about that.

http://www.nytimes.c...ation-bill.html

I mean, I'm pretty sure he'll veto this one regardless given that not vetoing it would ostracize a good portion of his voter base, but still. I'm not going to relax about it until the thing is actually dead.

[pegasaurus]

I honestly have no idea what this PIPA is. However, my point is that Obama will either straight up veto the bill or the bill will be stuck fighting judiciary battles. Parties are allowed to sue the government for creating questionable legislation which will throw it in the courts. I mentioned the Arizona immigrant bill as the prime example of a piece of controversial legislation nullified due to legal battles. We already know our senators are idiots. We need to have faith in our President. As far as I am concerned, Obama's voting history as a congressman is irrelevant when you compare that to his platform and ideals as a President. Obama is on our side and this bill will not pass.

peregrin, on 24 December 2011 - 01:53 AM, said:

http://www.nytimes.c...ation-bill.html

I mean, I'm pretty sure he'll veto this one regardless given that not vetoing it would ostracize a good portion of his voter base, but still. I'm not going to relax about it until the thing is actually dead.

Is this that homeland defense bill? I've been keeping up with this one as well and I believe Obama threatened to veto it at first because it had some questionable wording. However, to my knowledge, the proposed bill is actually much more reasonable than the Patriot Act.

Then again, the deal with these anti-terrorism laws is that we as citizens can never really know how effective they are. If these laws have had tangible results in the prevention of terrorist attacks, would knowing make us feel safer due to the fact our system works or afraid knowing that our enemies are active in their efforts to attack us? It's a question that I think a lot of people forget when they write off anti-terrorism laws as invasion of privacy or abuse of powers. I personally would rather have the government tap my phone calls than let another anthrax attack occur.

[andrena]

pegasaurus, on 24 December 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

I honestly have no idea what this PIPA is. However, my point is that Obama will either straight up veto the bill or the bill will be stuck fighting judiciary battles. Parties are allowed to sue the government for creating questionable legislation which will throw it in the courts. I mentioned the Arizona immigrant bill as the prime example of a piece of controversial legislation nullified due to legal battles. We already know our senators are idiots. We need to have faith in our President. As far as I am concerned, Obama's voting history as a congressman is irrelevant when you compare that to his platform and ideals as a President. Obama is on our side and this bill will not pass.



Is this that homeland defense bill? I've been keeping up with this one as well and I believe Obama threatened to veto it at first because it had some questionable wording. However, to my knowledge, the proposed bill is actually much more reasonable than the Patriot Act.

Then again, the deal with these anti-terrorism laws is that we as citizens can never really know how effective they are. If these laws have had tangible results in the prevention of terrorist attacks, would knowing make us feel safer due to the fact our system works or afraid knowing that our enemies are active in their efforts to attack us? It's a question that I think a lot of people forget when they write off anti-terrorism laws as invasion of privacy or abuse of powers. I personally would rather have the government tap my phone calls than let another anthrax attack occur.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin

[Lin]

PIPA is also known as the Protect-IP Act. I'm fairly certain that PIPA is actually WORSE than SOPA.

To be honest, Thilk09's post is pretty much the best thing about it actually. We REALLY need to get the word out there that it still exists as a thing and that it could possibly come in secretly after SOPA gets shot down and kick our asses, in a manner of speaking.

Also,


I'm really for the OPEN act actually, it is more thought out and better than SOPA and PIPA and makes a ton more sense. However, the thing which confuses me is the fact that OPEN Act appears to be made by the US Representatives + US Senate while SOPA and PIPA are made by either one. If they both agreed on OPEN Act, why didn't they put it through?!

[pegasaurus]

andrena, on 24 December 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin

Archaic quotes, while flashy, are nothing more than that. If Ben Franklin were alive in today's society I am more than certain that he would reconsider. To be honest, though, we really don't know what freedoms are being lost and what securities are being gained. Sure, the press simply salivates over fear mongers saying that the government will wiretap every home and monitor every phone call, but does that really happen? If they government says they don't go to the extreme, the population thinks they are being lied to. If the government says that they do go to the extreme, the conspiracy theorists will run wild. All the while, we expect the government to come up with a quick solution to every problem we run into. We Americans are a truly ungrateful lot.

Lin, on 24 December 2011 - 05:00 PM, said:

PIPA is also known as the Protect-IP Act. I'm fairly certain that PIPA is actually WORSE than SOPA.

To be honest, Thilk09's post is pretty much the best thing about it actually. We REALLY need to get the word out there that it still exists as a thing and that it could possibly come in secretly after SOPA gets shot down and kick our asses, in a manner of speaking.

Also,


I'm really for the OPEN act actually, it is more thought out and better than SOPA and PIPA and makes a ton more sense. However, the thing which confuses me is the fact that OPEN Act appears to be made by the US Representatives + US Senate while SOPA and PIPA are made by either one. If they both agreed on OPEN Act, why didn't they put it through?!

This is my first time hearing of OPEN and PIPA...
While according to the graphic, OPEN makes more sense, I highly doubt things are that simple. As I said before, we already know Congress is occupied by idiots. We have plenty of proof for that. But don't lump the White House into that same unruly lot.

[peregrin]

pegasaurus, on 26 December 2011 - 09:28 AM, said:

Archaic quotes, while flashy, are nothing more than that. If Ben Franklin were alive in today's society I am more than certain that he would reconsider.

Making hypothetical statements about famous historical figures, while flashy, is nothing more than that.

Oh, and side note: the government doesn't make decisions. People within government make decisions. Being conservative about what we allow government officials to do is a method of preventing corruption and an abuse of power, not some sort of ungrateful act of ignorance. And last I checked, media fear-mongering was more about the terrorism the bill is trying to combat, not about the potential civil liberties lost in the process.

[pegasaurus]

peregrin, on 26 December 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Making hypothetical statements about famous historical figures, while flashy, is nothing more than that.

Oh, and side note: the government doesn't make decisions. People within government make decisions. Being conservative about what we allow government officials to do is a method of preventing corruption and an abuse of power, not some sort of ungrateful act of ignorance. And last I checked, media fear-mongering was more about the terrorism the bill is trying to combat, not about the potential civil liberties lost in the process.

The better method is to elect more qualified people to those positions. You said it yourself. The people involved in the government make decisions, not the government itself. If you have qualified individuals in the position to do great things, why would you seek to restrict that progress?

If you restrict the government as a whole without changing the people who work it, you're not going to get anywhere.

[peregrin]

pegasaurus, on 26 December 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

The better method is to elect more qualified people to those positions. You said it yourself. The people involved in the government make decisions, not the government itself. If you have qualified individuals in the position to do great things, why would you seek to restrict that progress?

If you restrict the government as a whole without changing the people who work it, you're not going to get anywhere.

While your optimism is admirable, sadly even the best people can turn abusive given the right opportunity. Why gamble with the elected? Why not just build a system that can't be abused? Because unfortunately, we don't have the option of electing better people because it's impossible to know who's better until they're actually elected. And at that point, if they turn out not to be good? Well, good luck.

[Xav56]

I'd like to know something, SOPA only concern America right ?
Because now that I know the aim of this it's kinda scary.
Oh and yeah

MEGAUPLOAD, SEND ME A FILE TODAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY *shoot*

[SDM]

Xav56, on 27 December 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:

I'd like to know something, SOPA only concern America right ?
Because now that I know the aim of this it's kinda scary.
Oh and yeah

MEGAUPLOAD, SEND ME A FILE TODAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY *shoot*

With the way SOPA is worded, it doesn't just affect America. the short version of the story is that a lot of the internet is hosted in America.

Most of these same sites will be targeted by the escapees of the Copyright Mental Asylum.

Thus, the big important sites, like Youtube and shit, will be unavailable to outsiders as well.

[peregrin]

Lishy, on 27 December 2011 - 04:58 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure we know who's better and all. Take the presidential elections for example. We have religious extremists like Newt Gingrich who can be recently quoted as saying: "How can I trust you with power if you don't pray?"

I have no idea how he came to power, but we could instantly tell by that quote alone he's an arrogant son of a bitch who lives in his own little world.

The problem is we have apathetic people voting for candidates even though they are too lazy to research them in the first place!

No. No no no no no. This is not true at all. Campaigning is designed to mislead people into thinking that all policies are in their best interest. Think of all of the lower class individuals in the southern US that vote republican. I can almost guarantee that many of them honestly think the republican approach to taxes will benefit them to some capacity. Time and again, a significant chunk of the republican voter base is suckered into voting against their own interests. And I'm willing to bet it's not because they're making well-informed decisions. All you really need to do is turn on Fox News for 30 minutes to see just how and why these people become so misinformed.

In my book, the problem isn't apathy as much as it is a system that's designed to mislead. You can't expect people working difficult jobs and struggling to make ends meet to dedicate a lot of time researching politics. It doesn't automatically make you apathetic not to put in that effort - it usually just means that you have other priorities (and ones that are often justified).

[pegasaurus]

Oh my... don't even get me started about this thing we call "campaigning." An honest campaign is supposed to display your strengths and promote your platform. Nowadays it's nothing more than a mudslinging contest. Obama is a great president and deserves a second term. If one of those republican clowns gets through... Sigh.


But then again, politics has become a place where an honest man (or woman) will get eaten alive. It really sucks that things have to work this way...