|
ekg
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2012, 09:19:50 pm » |
|
How did my name get dragged into this? I've not posted anything about SOPA. Previous experience on the Muche shows that when I've posted about bills that threaten internet freedom, I get a lot of pushback.
At least in this case, there is a left/right coalition opposed to it. We really couldn't put one together for the NDAA but maybe we've learned something from that debacle.
wait.. you're against the SOPA bill? you? really... |
Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2012, 09:21:40 pm » |
|
How did my name get dragged into this? I've not posted anything about SOPA. Previous experience on the Muche shows that when I've posted about bills that threaten internet freedom, I get a lot of pushback.
At least in this case, there is a left/right coalition opposed to it. We really couldn't put one together for the NDAA but maybe we've learned something from that debacle.
Not like you don't blame everything on Obama, huh? |
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2012, 09:27:42 pm » |
|
That was a topic for tomorrow.  Sullivan nailed it! |
|
|
|
|
ekg
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2012, 09:34:40 pm » |
|
That was a topic for tomorrow. Sullivan nailed it! I was going to give it it's own thread, but it seemed like a good place for it..  |
Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
|
|
|
|
Howey
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2012, 11:55:13 am » |
|
I was going to give it it's own thread, but it seemed like a good place for it.. Yet, after Sullivan's words we still see stuff like this from the so-called liberal media: “How would you mainly describe the policies Barack Obama has pursued as president — as socialist, liberal, moderate, conservative or libertarian?” Socialist: 26% Liberal: 22% Moderate: 28% Conservative: 6% Libertarian: 4% DK/NA: 15% |
|
|
|
|
44nutman
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2012, 12:36:25 pm » |
|
Yet, after Sullivan's words we still see stuff like this from the so-called liberal media: “How would you mainly describe the policies Barack Obama has pursued as president — as socialist, liberal, moderate, conservative or libertarian?” Socialist: 26% Liberal: 22% Moderate: 28% Conservative: 6% Libertarian: 4% DK/NA: 15% Obama is a socialist is the biggest myth perputrated by the right wing media, ever. The dude is moderate and a friend to big business, plus big on defense. Everytime I hear someone use the Socialist word to describe the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, I know I am listening to a partisan hack. If Obama is a socialist than so is Mittens. |
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
 Offline
Posts: 907
 Badges: (View All)  
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2012, 08:37:53 pm » |
|
he was never for SOPA.. he's taking big hits in Hollywood for being against it.. It's Rupert Murdoch who wants this.. not Obama. Maybe you should read this piece by Andrew Sullivan.. because you seem to have a major disillusionment going on.. he really can't walk on water and neither can he do it all. It's up to congress and us to make congress do the things we want done.. Just like the SOPA protest today forced even Rubio to take away his support of the bill.. Obama can't do it all.. he isn't od no matter how much the gOP calls him 'messiah'.. Ha! I did read that article! It was pretty funny! now Andrew Sullivan is the Trig Truther. He's been investigating Palin's uterus for about 3 years. Still can't get to the bottom of it...*  * sorry, couldn't help it! |
|
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2012, 09:55:06 pm » |
|
wait..
you're against the SOPA bill?
you?
really...
Why are you surprised? I'm more surprised that you oppose it. You've poo-pooed virtually every attempt by the government to wrangle and tame the internet. So I can't tell who is for or against based on party. More likely who is close to Hollywood or not. http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/19/sopa-activism-moves-republicans-more-than-democrats/SOPA Activism Moves Republicans More Than DemocratsYesterday’s SOPA strike was enormously successful, not only raising attention to the issue but moving a tremendous amount of politicians for a one-day event. Over 4.5 million people signed Google’s petition against SOPA. The Wikipedia action gave high-profile attention to the issue as well, and even if Facebook and Twitter’s responses were muted, overall the online community made themselves heard.
But those of us charting the protest yesterday were struck by how most of the lawmakers turning against the bill were Republicans. If you look at the latest whip count on PIPA, for example, you see that more Republicans oppose it at this point than Democrats.
Instead, Democrats by and large finessed their responses, claiming that they would work to fix the finished product. Markos Moulitsas lets Democrats have it:
"You have an entire wired generation focused on this issue like a laser, fighting like hell to protect their online freedoms, and it’s FUCKING REPUBLICANS who are playing the heroes by dropping support?
Those goddam Democrats would rather keep collecting their Hollywood checks, than heed the will of millions of Americans who have lent their online voice in an unprecedented manner.
Are they really this stupid? Can they really be this idiotic?
Are they really going to cede this issue to Republicans, hand them this massive public victory, then get left with nothing but public scorn when SOPA and PIPA go down in flames?" |
|
|
|
|
|
ekg
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2012, 02:02:42 pm » |
|
Why are you surprised? I'm more surprised that you oppose it. You've poo-pooed virtually every attempt by the government to wrangle and tame the internet ?? since I don't like the idea of Gov't messing with the internet and have "poo-pooed virtually every attempt by the government to wrangle and tame the internet" that leads you to be surprised that I would be against SOPA? ohkay... So I can't tell who is for or against based on party. More likely who is close to Hollywood or not. http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/19/sopa-activism-moves-republicans-more-than-democrats/SOPA Activism Moves Republicans More Than DemocratsYesterday’s SOPA strike was enormously successful, not only raising attention to the issue but moving a tremendous amount of politicians for a one-day event. Over 4.5 million people signed Google’s petition against SOPA. The Wikipedia action gave high-profile attention to the issue as well, and even if Facebook and Twitter’s responses were muted, overall the online community made themselves heard.
But those of us charting the protest yesterday were struck by how most of the lawmakers turning against the bill were Republicans. If you look at the latest whip count on PIPA, for example, you see that more Republicans oppose it at this point than Democrats.
Instead, Democrats by and large finessed their responses, claiming that they would work to fix the finished product. Markos Moulitsas lets Democrats have it:
"You have an entire wired generation focused on this issue like a laser, fighting like hell to protect their online freedoms, and it’s FUCKING REPUBLICANS who are playing the heroes by dropping support?
Those goddam Democrats would rather keep collecting their Hollywood checks, than heed the will of millions of Americans who have lent their online voice in an unprecedented manner.
Are they really this stupid? Can they really be this idiotic?
Are they really going to cede this issue to Republicans, hand them this massive public victory, then get left with nothing but public scorn when SOPA and PIPA go down in flames?"well, they'll either see the light or regret it... |
Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2012, 05:56:02 pm » |
|
?? since I don't like the idea of Gov't messing with the internet and have "poo-pooed virtually every attempt by the government to wrangle and tame the internet" that leads you to be surprised that I would be against SOPA?
ohkay...
Dang it! One aspect of the demise of the Muche is the store of previous comments of yours that I could pull up when you say something (like the above) that is contradicted by previous statements. You've been very much in favor of the Gov't messing with the internet in the past, however I can't really show you now. The post Muche era will be a boon to you! |
|
|
|
|
|
ekg
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2012, 01:06:09 pm » |
|
Dang it! One aspect of the demise of the Muche is the store of previous comments of yours that I could pull up when you say something (like the above) that is contradicted by previous statements. You've been very much in favor of the Gov't messing with the internet in the past, however I can't really show you now. The post Muche era will be a boon to you!
you're talking about the FCC and net-neutrality.. I am against anyone interfering with the internet and if it takes the FCC to ensure that no one fucks with it? Then I can go along with that... as long as the FCC doesn't fuck with it either. the issue was some ISP's wanted to limit their users bandwidths and start changing like cell phone plans used to be or block sites they didn't like and generally fuck with the net.. the FCC said no, but in order to ensure that wouldn't happen they needed to take some control.. that I was for because that was the only way to keep the larger ISP from taking control and really screwing things up.. that is not the same as being ' in favor of the Gov't messing with the internet in the past' in fact, it's completely in line with my view of keeping the net the way it is.. and if business won't do that, if they infact want to disrupt that for their own bottom lines while hurting millions, then I'm good with the Gov't stepping up and ensuring no one will fuck with it.. someone had to or big business would have bastardized another industry.. you were against it because you'd rather see it in the hands business, all the while tooting your invisible "I'm for free-speech more than you are" horn... but you still think business' are people and can't become corrupted, so... I didn't pay that bullshit quip of yours anymore mind than I do when you try to pretend you're for CU because of free speech.. those are just your trolling buzz words, nothing more.. because we both know you're about as libertarian as Barry Sanders is.. |
Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2012, 06:31:24 pm » |
|
you're talking about the FCC and net-neutrality.. I am against anyone interfering with the internet and if it takes the FCC to ensure that no one fucks with it? Then I can go along with that... as long as the FCC doesn't fuck with it either.
the issue was some ISP's wanted to limit their users bandwidths and start changing like cell phone plans used to be or block sites they didn't like and generally fuck with the net.. the FCC said no, but in order to ensure that wouldn't happen they needed to take some control.. that I was for because that was the only way to keep the larger ISP from taking control and really screwing things up..
that is not the same as being ' in favor of the Gov't messing with the internet in the past' in fact, it's completely in line with my view of keeping the net the way it is.. and if business won't do that, if they infact want to disrupt that for their own bottom lines while hurting millions, then I'm good with the Gov't stepping up and ensuring no one will fuck with it.. someone had to or big business would have bastardized another industry..
you were against it because you'd rather see it in the hands business, all the while tooting your invisible "I'm for free-speech more than you are" horn... but you still think business' are people and can't become corrupted, so... I didn't pay that bullshit quip of yours anymore mind than I do when you try to pretend you're for CU because of free speech.. those are just your trolling buzz words, nothing more.. because we both know you're about as libertarian as Barry Sanders is..
Well, there is a lot to dislike on net neutrality. First of all, it was a power grab by the FCC that didn't have the statutory ability to regulate the internet in the first place. The Courts rejected their attempt as you may recall. But, as I've learned recently from you, if the Republicans are being dicks (or in this case if the courts are) then it's OK to violate the constitution and applicable laws. So at the time we originally argued about net neutrality, I would have thought the illegality of it should have been enough to get you to oppose it. Little did I know...  |
|
|
|
|
|
ekg
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2012, 12:41:24 am » |
|
Well, there is a lot to dislike on net neutrality. First of all, it was a power grab by the FCC that didn't have the statutory ability to regulate the internet in the first place. The Courts rejected their attempt as you may recall. But, as I've learned recently from you, if the Republicans are being dicks (or in this case if the courts are) then it's OK to violate the constitution and applicable laws. So at the time we originally argued about net neutrality, I would have thought the illegality of it should have been enough to get you to oppose it. Little did I know... it's a shame your mind is a 'lil' as your name.. |
Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
|
|
|
lil mike
Noob
Karma: +2/-4
Offline
Posts: 907
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2012, 08:06:56 pm » |
|
it's a shame your mind is a 'lil' as your name..
Well that certainly was an intellectual checkmate! But heh, you did say that Republicans forced Obama to violate the Constitution: I asked Those secret holds have nothing to do with the issue of a unconstitutional appointments. Are you honestly arguing that Republican secret holds justify violating the constitution?
That reminds me of Forrest Gump, when Jenny's boyfriend hit her because of that "lying son of a bitch, Johnson!"
So the Republican's forced Obama to violate the constitution. Interesting defense.
and you responded pretty much.. their abuse of power forced him to do what he did. A president is allowed to staff his administration..the GOP are being abusive pricks by holding up Obama's nomination for nothing other than their stated goal of wanting to see him fail..especially when some of his nominees, when finally given a real up or down vote, get 90+% approval.. the gOP's actions forced his. And sorry, but his DOJ said it's not unconstitutional, and you know you like to rely on a presidents lawyer, so you're whining up the wrong tree..
So what am I supposed to gather from what's been posted here over the past two months? Obama has carte blanche to do anything. No mere Constitution dare stand in his way! |
|
|
|
|
|
ekg
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2012, 09:13:38 pm » |
|
Well that certainly was an intellectual checkmate!
But heh, you did say that Republicans forced Obama to violate the Constitution:
I asked
and you responded
So what am I supposed to gather from what's been posted here over the past two months? Obama has carte blanche to do anything. No mere Constitution dare stand in his way!
you may 'gather' what you're capable of 'gathering'.. which isn't much in that extremely strict world of yours... what I 'gather' is that it doesn't benefit me to argue with someone so one-dimensional |
Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them. Balance is irrelevant to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
|
|
|
|
|
|
