GSO/Guilford Pols

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

« Rick James was rich | Main | Something in the water »

Jan 18, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef016760bce5fe970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blackout:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill B.

Well, Ed, I pulled out all the stops. I used facts from the article, sullied my fingers by typing "CATO" and even name-dropped you! Mission accomplished? I have to say, I remember John McCain telling us just four years ago that he knew how to use "the Google" and I shudder to think how many more Senators probably don't even know that to this day.

Lenslinger

Ed. Let's chat on camera about SOPA. Before lunch. Got ten minutes?

Lenslinger

Oops. Change of plans. NEXT blackout!

polifrog

Marco Rubio, cosponsor of PIPA, has pulled his support for the bill after 'hearing the people'.

No word yet on why he had to 'hear the people' before pulling support when he supposedly 'heard the people' when he was elected.

Vigilance is tiresome.

michele

SOPA/PIPA reminded me of sopapilla, and now I'm craving a cinnamon and honey Mexican dessert. In other news, I contacted Sen. Hagan's office and got voicemail, so I left a message. I contacted Rep. Coble's office and talked to a human, with whom I registered my opposition to SOPA/PIPA. He told me that Coble is waiting for the final bill to come out before making a decision on whether or not to support it. I was not reassured.

James

Best analysis I've seen on this ... available at the Orange Satan

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/18/1055849/-Confessions-Of-A-Hollywood-Professional:-Why-I-Cant-Support-the-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-?via=siderec

Sue

They listen?

SOPA/PIPA lose two big supporters today: Senators Scott Brown and Marco Rubio.

Meanwhile, Reps. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) and Lee Terry (R-NE), two co-sponsors of SOPA, are both quietly removing their names from the official list of co-sponsors, POLITICO reported on Wednesday morning. (same link as above)

Has anyone heard from Brad Miller on this? I may just have to email him.

Roch101

Kay Hagan just used the "$58 billion" stolen intellectual property amount the article in your post debunks in an interview with Mark Binker.

The 41 cosponsors Hagan cites to Mark has shrunk to 39 as 2 co-sponsors withdraw their sponsorship today.

Here's what's missing from the supporters' reasons for supporting the bills: explanations of why the bills' provisions will work. Their rhetoric is about the dire nature of the problem and the importance of copyright protection, not about what the mechanisms in the bill will do. No "By making U.S. companies block domain names, we will..." or "By making American web sites stop linking to blacklisted sites, we will..." Nobody is closing the circle and there's a reason, attempting to do so would expose the deficiencies of these bills.

Hagan is parroting lobbyists' talking points. I wonder if that's because she hasn't explored other sources of information. It's hard to imagine how anybody could have a comprehensive understanding of the consequences of these bills' provisions and continue to support them.

polifrog

Roch101:

Here's what's missing from the supporters' reasons for supporting the bills: explanations of why the bills' provisions will work. Their rhetoric is about the dire nature of the problem and the importance of copyright protection, not about what the mechanisms in the bill will do.

This sounds familiar to me.

I believe the failure of this bill is that there were too few free items raining toward the masses to garner needed support. The crafters of SOPA seem to have forgotten that it is much easier for the citizenry to trade away liberty when free stuff comes their way in return.

Your lack of support for SOPA relative to your support for ObamaCare suggests that there wasn't enough of a payoff to cover the liberty lost to win your support. Being that SOPA is likely to return in some form, I wonder how much free stuff might be required to turn your SOPA hate into something that resembles your ObamaCare love?

Roch101

"This sounds familiar to me." -- Pfrog

If you'll point me to what I wrote that you find familiar, I'll address it; but if you are asking me to defend a figment of your imagination, I'll have to pass.

polifrog

Roch101:

Here's what's missing from the supporters' reasons for supporting the bills: explanations of why the bills' provisions will work. Their rhetoric is about the dire nature of the problem and the importance of copyright protection, not about what the mechanisms in the bill will do.

Similar words could have been hurled toward ObamaCare ... and were, but not by you. Yet, now you write those words. Why fight lost liberty now, but not then?

My answer simply follows the quid pro quo. Or in liberal parlance I followed the money.


And that leads me to this aside:

- It is not politicians on the take that are a threat to our nation; they have been around since its founding. The real threat to our nation and our liberty is a society on the take.

Occupy noted that corporations were in bed with the politicians, but seemed unaware that they were demanding a threesome of sorts. They jealously wanted their place in the bed and made it clear they were willing to trade liberty for free stuff. Just how is that different from what they claimed the corporations were doing? And how is that any different from what you did in supporting ObamaCare?

Like Occupy and the corporations you are on the take - trading political support for goodies. How else do you explain your support for ObamaCare and lack of support for SOPA?

So I ask, how much free stuff would have been required to buy your support of SOPA?

Roch101

"Similar words could have been hurled toward ObamaCare ... and were, but not by you." -- pfrog

"Similar words" were written? Where? I cannot make a comparison between something I wrote and an impression in your head.

Roch101

"And how is that any different from what you did in supporting ObamaCare?" -- pfrog

Did I support ObamaCare or is that some fantasy rolling around in your head?

polifrog
Did I support ObamaCare or is that some fantasy rolling around in your head?

I had no idea your support was clueless.

polifrog

Furthermore, it should be noted that the heavy lifting being done by Google and others against SOPA is being done under the good graces of Citizens United...

So, where is all the no free speech for corporation chatter?

You are all a duplicitous bunch, every last one of you.

sean

when corporations are actually "speaking" by protesting an issue -- either by censoring access to their own sites or applying a censored label to their logo -- you equate such actions with unlimited donations to political campaigns. "free speech."

seems like you're part of the problem, froggy.

Ed Cone

Trolling for an argument, using bullshit for bait.

Don't feed trolls.

polifrog

sean:

when corporations are actually "speaking" by protesting an issue -- either by censoring access to their own sites or applying a censored label to their logo -- you equate such actions with unlimited donations to political campaigns. "free speech."

Absolutely.

Do the two of you think what these corporations are doing comes without a cost? Do you think it does not influence politics?

It does. And rightly so.

Trolling? No. I am simply noting the hypocrisy. And as for proof that I am not trolling for argument, which admittedly looks suspect, I will refrain from further comments this evening.

Roch101

"I had no idea your support was clueless." -- Pfrog

Don't back down, dufuss, you started this by crafting an accusation against my principles, concocting an argument based on me having supported ObamaCare. So where is it, punk? What "support" of ObamaCare by me are you referring to? Are you going to shirk away like a boy who wet his pants in public or are going to finish what you started?

Here, let me help you and put you out of your misery. This is what I wrote on my blog about the Affordable Care Act when it became law:

"Despite the explanation that what we are likely now to get is better than nothing, I think not. A cost/benefit evaluation leads me to think it's better that nothing get passed rather than this crippled-by-compromise junk...

Next time you desire to direct a criticism at me, get your facts straight first.

Now, buzz off and good night.

greensboro transplant

excellent points poli.

it's like the gay marriage/polygamy argument. one is an acceptable behavior for the state to control/promote/protect. the other is not.

unfortunately a fish can never tell that it's wet.

sean

frog, no one person running for office will directly benefit from google blacking out their own logo in protest of this bill. that isn't the case in minnesota, for example, where one candidate stands to benefit greatly from a corporate donation of $150,000. google and wikipedia are defending their place on the web while simultaneously serving as solid netizens, helping educate the general population about the ramifications of this bill... a position you seem to agree with.

but that can't be enough, can it?

not one single owner of google stock would argue with such a decision. target stock owners? not so much. do you want to live in a world where your financial investments (stocks, mutual funds, companies you frequent, etc.) can greatly influence both the representative seats and focus of this nation? particularly in ways you might not agree with? you might be willing to pen such concerns to situations when only unions are donating uncontrollably, but i'm against both situations.

political representatives should represent our interests, not organizational interests. google and wikipedia happen to be serving both, in this case, without greasing a single palm.

cheripickr

Polifrog- "The crafters of SOPA seem to have forgotten that it is much easier for the citizenry to trade away liberty when free stuff comes their way in return....Your lack of support for SOPA relative to your support for ObamaCare suggests that there wasn't enough of a payoff to cover the liberty lost to win your support. Being that SOPA is likely to return in some form, I wonder how much free stuff might be required to turn your SOPA hate into something that resembles your ObamaCare love?"

Roch- "This is what I wrote on my blog about the Affordable Care Act when it became law:
'I had high hopes for health care reform. It was a major consideration in my voting decisions last year. Despite the explanation that what we are likely now to get is better than nothing, I think not. A cost/benefit evaluation leads me to think it's better that nothing get passed rather than this crippled-by-compromise junk..'."

In other words, Roch was for Obamacare before he was against it, and until it got watered down. "Crippled-by-compromise" equals "they took out too much of the free stuff for me to support it any more"

...precisely making Polifrog's point. Nice to see you two collaborate to argue the same point for a change. Beautiful, and crystal-clear.

michele

Ugh. I still never got my sopapilla.

polifrog

Roch101:

"Despite the explanation that what we are likely now to get is better than nothing, I think not. A cost/benefit evaluation leads me to think it's better that nothing get passed rather than this crippled-by-compromise junk...

cheripickr called it; you held your support hostage for more free stuff ... what you like to call cost benefit analysis.

The comments to this entry are closed.