say ALMOST anything we want about politics

[GregAtlas]

^ Agreed about the food stuff.

Also agreed that the occupy movement is a big sign people are getting fed up with the way things are. I personally don't know what the movement is about, but if police "white shirts" (commanders) are attacking people in new york for apparently no reason, then there has to be something to it.

It looks like congress voted unanimously to cut all programs like operation Fast and Furious yesterday. Too bad it is too late for those two border patrol officers and the hundreds of Mexicans that have already been killed because of it.

[HalcyonFour]

The USDA used to do wonders, whether they still do or not. Once upon a time, the meatpacking industry and other food producers had "convinced" the government (or at least their wallets) that it could be trusted, and the government agency nominally in charge of inspecting food was little more than a facade. To break the fallacy that food industries can be trusted to self-police, it took The Jungle and so much mass food-poisoning (aka ptomaine) that it was the leading cause of death among young adults. The USDA was created, and food got much safer than it had been in a long time.

Flash-forward a century, and the USDA doesn't even have the power to demand a recall when food starts killing people. They have to ask nicely and hope that the company will do so in a timely fashion - i.e. before 5/6th of it has already been consumed, as happened in a 2002 ConAgra incident. And their ability to even inspect food, pronounce something unsafe, or go after false claims has been whittled down to almost nothing.

Corporations around the turn of the last century pretty much ran everything, until massive outcry and popular movement forced reform. We're starting to see repeats of history all over the place - the abuses of the mortgage industry, the almost-open buying of politicians, using quasi-legal immigration to break the labor movement, the food industry scandals, etc. YMMV, but I think the Occupy movement may be the first serious sign that people have had enough.

Yes.

[Animeman73]

Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.

1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.
2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.
3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.
4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!
5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.
6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution:  Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.

If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up. And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.

[GregAtlas]

They made that seed so the farmers would have to buy their seed each time rather than harvest some of their own crops and get their own seeds. It is so that seed company gets more profits.

[HalcyonFour]

Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.

1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.

While I do agree that going back to the gold standard might not be an immediate answer, let's take a look at the reason you give. The reason for the gold standard IS because there is all that money floating out there. Think about it. Would you rather have $100 in bills or $100 worth of gold? Most people would choose the gold because it is a solid store of wealth. It forces money to be tied to something concrete. If you've ever studied the history of money, you would know that historically, tying money to gold was the only way to guarantee that your wealth was saved. The process would not be immediate, we might have to revalue our system and have a floating exchange rate, but theoretically it could be done.

2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.

This is false. Ron Paul is advocating for 10th amendment rights, which gives states more power. If you have less federal government, you would need less taxes to finance it. When he talks about getting rid of taxes, he is mainly pushing for less federal taxes. He does want to abolish the income and death taxes, but this does not mean we would not have a sales tax or taxes on other goods!

3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.

Do you have ANY idea about what the Bureau of Homeland Security has done? How many rights it has taken away from us? If you are in support of civil liberties being stripped away for matters of "security" then I guess it would make sense to continue to vote for politicians who support this type of regulation.

4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!

Excuse me? Ron Paul has advocated for a strengthening of national borders. There are Ron Paul SUPPORTERS who have advocated for civilian militias, but this is because most of them believe that a police state is soon to be imposed on the American populace. Look up FEMA Camps on Google for reasons why they might believe this. If you can please provide sources for these claims, I would like to read them over.

5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In
case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.

Unfortunately, it seems that war propaganda has succeeded in convincing the politic of the philosophy of preemptive war strategy.  When Bush went to war with Iraq, it was purportedly because of WMDs. There were none. Now the Obama administration is continuing to push for war against Iran...why? For what reason? While it may be the case that there are some Islamic extremists, I have my doubts about their ability to take on the U.S. It is precisely because of the U.S. strategies of policing the world that it has garnered so much hatred. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather social injustices and the policing of the world. It is similar to the issue with Palestine/Israel. The issue was never about religion, but land, power, and occupation.

6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution:  Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.

Excuse me? Make the dollar illegal? Can you please provide links to back this up? I want a quote from Ron Paul about his thoughts on this.

If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up.

So you watched one biased video and formulated all of your opinions based on that. I would suggest that you look into his actual positions. This is his website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.

Why? So that Monsanto can gain enormous profits and political power. If they control the food supply, they control the world. Thankfully, these seeds were made illegal, but they still created at least 20 different types of them, I believe. I wouldn't doubt that they are in the process of continuing to pursue it.

The reason why I believe that Ron Paul would make a good president is because he has tirelessly advocated for civil liberties. I don't agree with his positions on every issue; I also have qualms about the gold standard and some of his foreign policy. However, as I've been researching the Patriot Act, and the gradual deterioration of our rights as citizens, Ron Paul is the only (mainstream) candidate who has consistently advocated for these rights. You mentioned that "The price of liberty is always vigilance," well, I would like to rebut that with "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[Animeman73]

Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.

1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.

While I do agree that going back to the gold standard might not be an immediate answer, let's take a look at the reason you give. The reason for the gold standard IS because there is all that money floating out there. Think about it. Would you rather have $100 in bills or $100 worth of gold? Most people would choose the gold because it is a solid store of wealth. It forces money to be tied to something concrete. If you've ever studied the history of money, you would know that historically, tying money to gold was the only way to guarantee that your wealth was saved. The process would not be immediate, we might have to revalue our system and have a floating exchange rate, but theoretically it could be done.

2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.

This is false. Ron Paul is advocating for 10th amendment rights, which gives states more power. If you have less federal government, you would need less taxes to finance it. When he talks about getting rid of taxes, he is mainly pushing for less federal taxes. He does want to abolish the income and death taxes, but this does not mean we would not have a sales tax or taxes on other goods!

3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.

Do you have ANY idea about what the Bureau of Homeland Security has done? How many rights it has taken away from us? If you are in support of civil liberties being stripped away for matters of "security" then I guess it would make sense to continue to vote for politicians who support this type of regulation.

4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!

Excuse me? Ron Paul has advocated for a strengthening of national borders. There are Ron Paul SUPPORTERS who have advocated for civilian militias, but this is because most of them believe that a police state is soon to be imposed on the American populace. Look up FEMA Camps on Google for reasons why they might believe this. If you can please provide sources for these claims, I would like to read them over.

5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In
case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.

Unfortunately, it seems that war propaganda has succeeded in convincing the politic of the philosophy of preemptive war strategy.  When Bush went to war with Iraq, it was purportedly because of WMDs. There were none. Now the Obama administration is continuing to push for war against Iran...why? For what reason? While it may be the case that there are some Islamic extremists, I have my doubts about their ability to take on the U.S. It is precisely because of the U.S. strategies of policing the world that it has garnered so much hatred. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather social injustices and the policing of the world. It is similar to the issue with Palestine/Israel. The issue was never about religion, but land, power, and occupation.

6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution:  Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.

Excuse me? Make the dollar illegal? Can you please provide links to back this up? I want a quote from Ron Paul about his thoughts on this.

If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up.

So you watched one biased video and formulated all of your opinions based on that. I would suggest that you look into his actual positions. This is his website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.

Why? So that Monsanto can gain enormous profits and political power. If they control the food supply, they control the world. Thankfully, these seeds were made illegal, but they still created at least 20 different types of them, I believe. I wouldn't doubt that they are in the process of continuing to pursue it.

The reason why I believe that Ron Paul would make a good president is because he has tirelessly advocated for civil liberties. I don't agree with his positions on every issue; I also have qualms about the gold standard and some of his foreign policy. However, as I've been researching the Patriot Act, and the gradual deterioration of our rights as citizens, Ron Paul is the only (mainstream) candidate who has consistently advocated for these rights. You mentioned that "The price of liberty is always vigilance," well, I would like to rebut that with "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Now that we've got all that out of the way I'll say this. I stand by everything I say. You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.

1. You say back up our money with Gold. Like I said there's not enough Gold on the Planet to cover the amount of money we got floating out there. Granted Gold and precious metals are a great investmment idea that can yield some heavy dividends if played for the long haul. But it's been proven that Ron Paul wants to return us to the Gold standard it's the No-spin truth.

2. Actually it isn't false granted we'd have fewer Government agencies but look at what Ron Paul wants to get rid of. The Federal Reserve, The Bureau Homeland Security, The Bureau Of Eductaion. The I.R.S.  Those who are in charge of insuring that our nation has some measure of regulation or collect money needed for government to run it's basic services. We might be burdened by too much regulation which could be cut. But too little regulation...and the gangsters run amuck unchecked.

3. The Bureau of Homeland Security has worked quietly behind the scenes insuring that all Government agencies work together and share information to help us deal with the threat of Teerrorism which is still very real. And getting rid of the Federal reserve would cut off every American business from getting the money they need to get things done and make a profitand thusly cause our great entrepreneurial system to collpase no new businesses big or small. You can only cut so much from the Federal government before you you kill vital services. Granted the Government could stand to be shrunk but eliminate our most important agencies there's a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

4. Ah yes, the so-called police state. People who are talking like that I say to them go to a third world dictatorship country and THEN you'll see a police state. America is many things but it is not now nor will it ever be a police state. That's a conspiracy thoery (And I don't apoliogize for saying that because that's what it is). And what happened with FEMA that was it's own fault they botched up big time.

5. War propaganda? That's a conspiracy theory pushed by the anti-war isolationist crowd. Obama has never advocated war with Iran. Granted there were no WMDs in Iraq but Saddam Hussien was a meanace that needed to be stopped in case he did. We should've gone in Iraq AFTER we killed Osama Bin Laden. But in the end it doesn't matter because we got that varmit none the less. And the so-called policing the world has caused the world to hate us...sorry that's spin by the anti-war crowd. Sorry but Ron Paul and his followers see the U.S. Army as part of the "Police state" and want to dismantle it for "Ciivilian Militias" which would spell disaster for us if another power decided to invade.

6. He would illegalize the dollar and he quotes I recall the very same Amendment which states thates the the Dollar shall be the only currecy by the U.S. or in Ron Paul's case he twists the translation to suit his own ends. People like him who twist and pervert the constitution are the sort of people who should NOT be in office.

7. I actually checked out that website. it's a known pro-Ron Paul website. I prefer to go to known, established, and respected non-partisan sites for information. Granted Bill O' Reily likes to antagonize people and I'm not exactly cool with that, I prefer Mike Huckabee's approach. Still Bill O' Reily doesn't take sides he simply lays it out and a lot of times he's right though he does have a bad habit of being anti-union while I myself am pro-union. And funny thing about Public Cable Access folks who go on those channels usually are talking to those who they think are on their side and are unafraid to tell it like it is. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "Keep your friends close keep your opponents closer."

9. Enormous Profits and political powerr? Ahh, ahhh that's a conspiracy theory. Granted they want to make money, what business doesn't? That's the name of the game in the business world. Granted a number of big Businesses could learn to have more accountability but if we simply don't buy their products they'll get the message. Or better still go into business against them. That will drive down the price of things for the consumer, lead to better quality of customer service, and create more jobs, and more oppurtunities for all. Like I said if you don't like a company, don't accuse them of nonsensical conspiacy theories. Just don't buy their product or start making the same thing they do. And the big problem with the whole sterile seed thing is if they were to do that they'd be putting themselves in danger of going out of business and starving the human race as well with an infertile seed. And no business last time I looked ever wanted to shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.

Sorry Ron Paul only supports the constitution when it's convienient for him. He's a constitutional lawyer, and like all lawyers he has a knack for twisting the truth when it serves his own ends. That's the truth behind the spin. And as for Ben Franklin the ORIGINAL American playa' and patriot yes, what he said was true, but...what he also means is we have to be on the lookout for those within our system who would seek to use it as a means to gain the power they crave. I'm sorry but Ron Paul wants to go beyond the presidency he wants to run the country for as long as he can and he'd use the constitution if he thought it could help him achieve that.

[GregAtlas]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/19/gop-reps-directly-press-obama-on-fast-and-furious/
Old news I know, but still pretty important...

[jaqua]

You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.

hahahahahahahaha omg are you kidding me
Dude, Fox News is the laughingstock of news channels for a reason. They have so much bias and outright fabrication in their "news" that it doesn't even count as news anymore. And don't even get me started on Bill O'Reilly, that hatemonger needs to just retire and get out of the public eye already. He's embarrassing every American with a brain.

[@random]

Fwiw, O'Reilly probably makes one of the most serious efforts to appear neutral out of all the Fox commentators*. That's not exactly a high standard, though. 

_{* - there being a big difference between commentator and reporter.}

[jaqua]

That's true, I'll give him that credit. He does at least attempt to appear "fair and balanced", even though he definitely is not.

[HalcyonFour]

See post below; accidentally submitted too early.

[HalcyonFour]

Now that we've got all that out of the way I'll say this. I stand by everything I say. You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.

Now I understand why you believe all of these things about Ron Paul. Please, I urge you to seek alternative media! You cannot expect the truth to come from these types of sources. The mainstream media is owned by corporations with interests. You mentioned non-biased sources. Dude. Wake up!

1. You say back up our money with Gold. Like I said there's not enough Gold on the Planet to cover the amount of money we got floating out there. Granted Gold and precious metals are a great investmment idea that can yield some heavy dividends if played for the long haul. But it's been proven that Ron Paul wants to return us to the Gold standard it's the No-spin truth.

LOOK AT THE U.S. INFLATION RATE. THE DOLLAR IS BEING DEVALUED AS WE SPEAK BECAUSE OF EASY MONEY POLICY. What you're saying about not enough gold in the world makes no sense at all! Can you please provide links to explain your logic?

2. Actually it isn't false granted we'd have fewer Government agencies but look at what Ron Paul wants to get rid of. The Federal Reserve, The Bureau Homeland Security, The Bureau Of Eductaion. The I.R.S.  Those who are in charge of insuring that our nation has some measure of regulation or collect money needed for government to run it's basic services. We might be burdened by too much regulation which could be cut. But too little regulation...and the gangsters run amuck unchecked.

1. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE BANK. It is NOT a federal agency. Alan Greenspan, formal Federal Reserve chairman himself said that the Fed has NO OBLIGATION to the law, and this is absolutely true. When the Fed wants to affect interest rates, it just prints money and buys or sells bonds! Do you have any idea what this has done to the U.S. inflation rate? The agencies you have mentioned are inefficient. I remember when Katrina came a ravaged New Orleans, FEMA was by far the biggest joke. It was extremely ineffective, yet all of that money continues to be funneled into it. I'm not fond of my tax dollars supporting an inefficient system.

3. The Bureau of Homeland Security has worked quietly behind the scenes insuring that all Government agencies work together and share information to help us deal with the threat of Teerrorism which is still very real. And getting rid of the Federal reserve would cut off every American business from getting the money they need to get things done and make a profitand thusly cause our great entrepreneurial system to collpase no new businesses big or small. You can only cut so much from the Federal government before you you kill vital services. Granted the Government could stand to be shrunk but eliminate our most important agencies there's a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

Um. The Fed does not loan commercially. It only loans to banks. So your notion of the Fed is wrong. Read up on it, and then come back to me with a rebuttal. As far as the "terrorism" threat...if you're a supporter of pre-emptive war strategy, go ahead and give your vote to Rick Perry or Romney, or whatever.

4. Ah yes, the so-called police state. People who are talking like that I say to them go to a third world dictatorship country and THEN you'll see a police state. America is many things but it is not now nor will it ever be a police state. That's a conspiracy thoery (And I don't apoliogize for saying that because that's what it is). And what happened with FEMA that was it's own fault they botched up big time.

Good. I'm glad you agree FEMA is ineffective.

I don't care if it's a conspiracy theory, the fact is that our privacy is being stolen from us. Just a couple of days ago the government issued its first ever "national emergency test". They're looking to do the same with internet and phones next, and there have already been measures to begin censoring the internet. Go ahead believing that this will never happen, or that the United States will continue to bask in its commercialism, but I'm not one to give myself to normalcy bias.
[/quote]

5. War propaganda? That's a conspiracy theory pushed by the anti-war isolationist crowd. Obama has never advocated war with Iran. Granted there were no WMDs in Iraq but Saddam Hussien was a meanace that needed to be stopped in case he did. We should've gone in Iraq AFTER we killed Osama Bin Laden. But in the end it doesn't matter because we got that varmit none the less. And the so-called policing the world has caused the world to hate us...sorry that's spin by the anti-war crowd. Sorry but Ron Paul and his followers see the U.S. Army as part of the "Police state" and want to dismantle it for "Ciivilian Militias" which would spell disaster for us if another power decided to invade.

Firstly, you are using the word "isolationism" improperly. "Isolationism" is a term that equates to economic autarky, so what you are saying makes no sense. The United States funds Israel's military. Israel has talked about bombing Iran by the end of 2012. Therefore, Obama is not opposed to going to war with Iran. Please don't be naive. And you  never provided any links like I asked you to about the militias, so I'm starting to think you're getting your information from hearsay.

6. He would illegalize the dollar and he quotes I recall the very same Amendment which states thates the the Dollar shall be the only currecy by the U.S. or in Ron Paul's case he twists the translation to suit his own ends. People like him who twist and pervert the constitution are the sort of people who should NOT be in office.

Excuse me? Illegalize the dollar? What does this even mean?! Where are you getting your information from, dude?!

7. I actually checked out that website. it's a known pro-Ron Paul website. I prefer to go to known, established, and respected non-partisan sites for information. Granted Bill O' Reily likes to antagonize people and I'm not exactly cool with that, I prefer Mike Huckabee's approach. Still Bill O' Reily doesn't take sides he simply lays it out and a lot of times he's right though he does have a bad habit of being anti-union while I myself am pro-union. And funny thing about Public Cable Access folks who go on those channels usually are talking to those who they think are on their side and are unafraid to tell it like it is. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "Keep your friends close keep your opponents closer."

Bill O'Reilly is just as biased, if not more so, than anyone else working for the corporate media. Like I said, now I understand why you believe all of these things about Ron Paul. And as far as Sun Tzu's comment...Ron Paul's foreign policy would encourage exactly what you are advocating for, and I'm surprised that you don't recognize that.

9. Enormous Profits and political powerr? Ahh, ahhh that's a conspiracy theory. Granted they want to make money, what business doesn't? That's the name of the game in the business world. Granted a number of big Businesses could learn to have more accountability but if we simply don't buy their products they'll get the message. Or better still go into business against them. That will drive down the price of things for the consumer, lead to better quality of customer service, and create more jobs, and more oppurtunities for all. Like I said if you don't like a company, don't accuse them of nonsensical conspiacy theories. Just don't buy their product or start making the same thing they do. And the big problem with the whole sterile seed thing is if they were to do that they'd be putting themselves in danger of going out of business and starving the human race as well with an infertile seed. And no business last time I looked ever wanted to shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.

If you don't believe that the corporate powers that be have an influence on our government, you are naive. I don't mean that as an insult, but if you just look at all the really powerful people (Secretary of the Treasury, etc.) many of them were former CEOs, or have worked for private corporations. And now they run our government! And it seems in this paragraph you are advocating for competitive markets....um...this is EXACTLY the kind of economic system Ron Paul has been advocating for--less inefficient regulation, and more free markets.

Sorry Ron Paul only supports the constitution when it's convienient for him.

Your knowledge of Ron Paul is clearly severely limited if you really believe this. Ron Paul is a STRICT constitutionalist.

He's a constitutional lawyer, and like all lawyers he has a knack for twisting the truth when it serves his own ends.

I literally LOL'd when I read this, dude. Ron Paul is NOT a lawyer! He is a DOCTOR!

Seriously, dude! From WHERE are you getting your information?! Are you trolling? Like...are you?

That's the truth behind the spin. And as for Ben Franklin the ORIGINAL American playa' and patriot yes, what he said was true, but...what he also means is we have to be on the lookout for those within our system who would seek to use it as a means to gain the power they crave.

My friend, you are in for a rude awakening. These are the exact kinds of infringements on our civil liberties and rights that Ron Paul has advocated for time and time again. I strongly urge you to go to one of the "biased" and "unbiased" websites and seriously read about how avidly Ron Paul has fought for our rights.

I'm sorry but Ron Paul wants to go beyond the presidency he wants to run the country for as long as he can and he'd use the constitution if he thought it could help him achieve that.

Well, it seems that your "unbiased" media has officially done its job.

Honestly, after reading through your comments, you did not really address any of the issues I mentioned. It is also clear that you do not understand the way that our financial systems work, and from what you are saying about the sources you listen to, though you accuse me of visiting biased sources, it seems that the pot is calling the kettle black. CNN, CNBC, ABC, Google, all the major networks are bought and payed for by corporate interests.

[Animeman73]

Ahh, typical of all Ron Paul supporters, you hear the words but do not listen with your mind. Granted I did mess up with Ron paul about hsi profession, but with everything else I'm quiote clear. My good fellow for you to throw audacious comments such as that I'm a brainwahed zombie in callusion with this secret conspiracy or that secret conspiracy just goes to show why Ron paul and his ilk will nevr win. And i beg to differ my good felow I was quite clear on the issues, and note this since we've started having this discussion you've constantly been throwinga b arrage of attacks my way while I have shown discipline and risen above it.

1, Another reason being, the man is in his 70's, he's not going to be around much longer.

2. The whole "Anything that even remotely dissimiliars from our persepctive is evil and part of a conspiarcy." It's true whenever anyone disagrees with Ron Paul all the followers come out of the woodwork and scream and shout trying to silence them. This is the exact same thing that the left is trying to do. And in the end in this great country it won't work>

Sorry in the end it's going to be Mitt Romney who proverbially pins Obama for the 1...2...3 victory and starts us down the right track to getting America back on feet. And with the way Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot Mitt Romney doesn't need to do all that much just stay positive and focus on his plan.. I'm a Moderate Democrat and i say Mitt Romney is the REAL hope for this country. Why, because we need moderates who will go by practicality, not ideology.

[jaqua]

Oh my god dude I can't even handle you. You're not providing links to back up your claims. You're not debating, you're repeating the same close-minded opinions and refusing to see any side but your own, and belittling anyone who tries to propose different ideas. That isn't how you debate, and especially not how you debate politics. If you're not here to debate, you may as well just stop posting.

Also, plenty of presidents have been 60+ years of age when sworn in to office. His age has nothing to do with his ability to lead. Besides, in modern times, the life expectancy of a person is much longer than it ever has been previously-- it's not uncommon to live well into your eighties, nineties, even to a hundred these days.

How can you consider yourself to be a Moderate Democrat when you hold such Conservative Republican leanings and watch Conservative Republican and far-right news shows?...

[GregAtlas]

I wonder if there are enough votes throughout time (total) for mickey mouse to win the presidency?

[TalaRedWolf33]

Id vote for him! Im his biggest fan!

[Washougal_Otaku]

So, I found this recently, and thought it'd be an interesting thing to present, especially since there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about it.

This is from the official website for Congress.  It is legit.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdl2QJ:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

I, for one, favor this, although I can see why many would argue against it.  Whichever one you side on this issue, I would recommend that you contact your local representatives and let them know you feel.  (I know that Sen. Ron Wyden is opposed to this...)

[Chromophobic]

I know nothing of politics....

But the whole thing about getting the internet-censorship-thing-whatever-I-dont-even-know issue is ridiculous. And making certain sites illegal? The discussion of making tumblr illegal is what lead me to learn about this and led me to this deviant art journal:

[Link]
This video explains PiPA in very basic terms and the same sort of idea applies to SOPA, but, (just to tell you here) in brief, the legislation, if passed, would essentially hand the Internet over to corporations, allowing them to sue and shut down any website that so much as hosts a link to copyrighted material.

Internet Service Providers could be forced to block social media sites, search engines could be required to delete results, and startups could lose their funding — all on the whim of the copyright holder.

Perhaps most distressing of all, however, is the fact that this bill, in true Orwellian fashion, does nothing to prevent actual piracy. The only thing it will succeed in doing is turning the Internet into a dystopic plutocracy where people are no longer free to share ideas and be creative for fear of running afoul of Big Business.

Despite what some would have you believe, the hearings are offensively lopsided, with pro-SOPA voices far outweighing those opposed. A slew of tech companies including Google, Yahoo!, Mozilla, Twitter, and AOL, have undersigned a full-page ad in today's New York Times opposing SOPA, but it's doubtful their voices will be heard by those who need to hear it.

That means it's up to you to get this terrifying, jobs-killing, Internet-breaking bill off the table for good.

[Washougal_Otaku]

So, looking at the last line of what you posted, I find it contradictory.  The purpose of SOPA is to stop piracy, something that keeps money from those that work on music, movies, etc.  I think SOPA is a good thing.  I'd like to read that Protect IP thing myself.  It sounds like someone making wild claims, but I'd like to read it myself... I'm gonna do some searching!

Okay, I can see where he was going with the Protect IP one, but I think SOPA makes enough differences to where it'd be a good thing.

[reppy]

I really think both of those bills have nothing to do with stopping piracy and everything to do with stopping unpopular speech.

These type of powers are abused.

[@random]

You're probably right in saying SOPA will be used against unpopular / anti-establishment speech... in fact, I'd be surprised if they don't use it against WikiLeaks within a year if SOPA becomes U.S. law.*

Will the MPAA and RIAA will abuse it? It's already happening with DMCA. The MPAA's recent defense in court when Hotfile sued them for knowingly and repeatedly sending false DMCA (copyright) takedown requests was pretty close to "Yeah, so what?" They even openly admitted to using takedown requests to get rid of Open Source material they didn't like, such as files that could be used to speed up downloading. Give them SOPA and remove due process, and you can probably say goodbye to any pretense of restraint.

_{* Addendum: I wasn't aware of it when I first posted, but it actually looks like wikileaks.org served as the prototype for one aspect of SOPA. Under SOPA, if a copyright holder claims that a site is violating their rights in some fashion, the credit card companies / Paypal / etc have to cut off that site's funding or risk legal liability. I wasn't aware of it, but a similar blockade has been used to strangle WikiLeaks in apparent retaliation for Cablegate.}

[Washougal_Otaku]

From what I got from SOPA, wikileaks has nothing to do with it, unless they do things that I'm unaware of.  As far as I know, they're a sort of journalism group, not an illegally-download-for-free site.

[@random]

Wikileaks should have nothing to do with SOPA, but all it would take is for one corporation to claim that an embarrassing leaked memo was copyrighted. That would empower the DoJ to seize the domain, and I don't think they would stop to examine the legal accuracy of said claim too closely. Remember, this is a site that pissed off a lot of congresscritters enough to openly call for the assassination of its founder.

That's one of the biggest reasons a lot of people are worried about SOPA - it makes sites guilty until proven innocent, and all it takes is for someone to dislike your site enough to accuse you. The very accusation can be enough to trigger getting your income frozen and/or your domain name seized. It could shut down Google and internet forums like this one as well, since you don't even have to be hosting something someone decides is copyrighted... just creating a link to it is enough.

(Fun bit of trivia: One of the bill's other provisions means creating and uploading an AMV to youtube becomes a felony. Seriously.)

[Washougal_Otaku]

That's definitely not what I got from reading the bill.  Besides, there would (or at least should) be ways to still legally fight it, should one of those theoretical scenarios come true.

[@random]

Which part(s) do you think aren't supported or are contradicted by the bill, and do you remember any text in the bill which contradicts it/them? I'd be really happy to learn some or all of my assertions aren't as bad as they seem.

Also, do you happen to remember any text in the bill which does allow for due process (i.e. the ability to legally fight it), other than the making-streaming-copyrighted-content-a-felony aspect*? Seriously, it would be good news.


_{(* - I think that's grossly disproportionate, but at least it's still due process.)}

[HalcyonFour]

Ahh, typical of all Ron Paul supporters, you hear the words but do not listen with your mind. Granted I did mess up with Ron paul about hsi profession, but with everything else I'm quiote clear. My good fellow for you to throw audacious comments such as that I'm a brainwahed zombie in callusion with this secret conspiracy or that secret conspiracy just goes to show why Ron paul and his ilk will nevr win. And i beg to differ my good felow I was quite clear on the issues, and note this since we've started having this discussion you've constantly been throwinga b arrage of attacks my way while I have shown discipline and risen above it.

1, Another reason being, the man is in his 70's, he's not going to be around much longer.

2. The whole "Anything that even remotely dissimiliars from our persepctive is evil and part of a conspiarcy." It's true whenever anyone disagrees with Ron Paul all the followers come out of the woodwork and scream and shout trying to silence them. This is the exact same thing that the left is trying to do. And in the end in this great country it won't work>

Sorry in the end it's going to be Mitt Romney who proverbially pins Obama for the 1...2...3 victory and starts us down the right track to getting America back on feet. And with the way Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot Mitt Romney doesn't need to do all that much just stay positive and focus on his plan.. I'm a Moderate Democrat and i say Mitt Romney is the REAL hope for this country. Why, because we need moderates who will go by practicality, not ideology.

Honey, I'm a woman, not a fellow, and you did not address any of my comments.

Oh, well. I tried.

[Washougal_Otaku]

The bill is talking about sites that offer illegal downloads of song files and the lot.  SOPA doesn't do that, so it doesn't relate.  That's enough reasoning right there.

[Malaria]

In general, I haven't bothered to keep up with the Republican election drama too hard, since I won't be voting in their primaries anyway. But I feel really bad for anyone who has to pick from these goobers. On the plus side, the RNC is gonna be pretty entertaining this time around.

[@random]

The bill is talking about sites that offer illegal downloads of song files and the lot.  SOPA doesn't do that, so it doesn't relate.  That's enough reasoning right there.

SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed...

by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works

"Digital transmission" isn't limited to illegal downloads. As the section name indicates, it includes streaming.

Section 2319 of title 18 (the law being referenced) made counterfeiting copyrighted goods (i.e. making DVDs of Titanic that are designed to look like the one being sold in stores) a felony. This bill changes that to "any copyright violation at all." In fairness, there's also a section which requires that it be more than $2500 in damages, but they added on the MPAA/RIAA's formula of "every download or view equals a lost sale". Considering how many copyrighted works an AMV usually samples, you've almost certainly committed a felony if it gets as many as 10 views. First offense, up to 5 years in prison per infringement. Second and thereafter, 10 years.

The next bit doesn't lend itself as well to easily-digested quotes, but I'll try. Emphasis added.

The term `Internet site' means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets...

a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if... the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code

You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.

To boot, they also wrote immunity from liability into the law so that not only the DoJ, but also payment providers will be immune from actions like the antitrust suit Wikileaks has filed in the EU against Visa et al for the blockade I described earlier. They face no penalty for unethically seizing someone's assets, but they'll be considered facilitators subject to felony charges if they don't comply "within 5 days". Even if they want to fight it on behalf of customers, they can't.

(5) IMMUNITY... any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order

[HalcyonFour]

There still is the other bill, Protect IP Act.

I think random is correct. Are you in law school, random?

[Washougal_Otaku]

SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed...

by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works

"Digital transmission" isn't limited to illegal downloads. As the section name indicates, it includes streaming.

No kidding, but that's not what's being said.  It's talking about the ones that are provided and downloaded illegally; that's what it means by "infringes a copyright."

Section 2319 of title 18 (the law being referenced) made counterfeiting copyrighted goods (i.e. making DVDs of Titanic that are designed to look like the one being sold in stores) a felony. This bill changes that to "any copyright violation at all." In fairness, there's also a section which requires that it be more than $2500 in damages, but they added on the MPAA/RIAA's formula of "every download or view equals a lost sale". Considering how many copyrighted works an AMV usually samples, you've almost certainly committed a felony if it gets as many as 10 views. First offense, up to 5 years in prison per infringement. Second and thereafter, 10 years.

AMV's wouldn't apply for various reasons.  For example, your getting random clips that are not in the original order.  Also, the original audio files (at least for what I call "genuine" AMV's) are not in the AMV's.  Therefore, the copyright laws that relate to illegal viewings doesn't apply.  As for the copyright theft, if you indicate where you got the audios and visuals for the AMV, (in other words, cite the sources), then you'll be fine, assuming that you got them legally.  If you got them illegally, then you've violated the law, whether you're making an AMV or not.

You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.

Well, I can't say anything regarding the site you're talking about, since I don't know who they are, but SOPA is designed to focus on the sites that are violating copyright laws.  Here's the opening quote:

Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

Anyone that the Attorney General sees violating the copyright laws will be told to stop first, given time to stop, and then punished should they continue on.  If anything, SOPA is a very forgiving-sounding law.

To boot, they also wrote immunity from liability into the law so that not only the DoJ, but also payment providers will be immune from actions like the antitrust suit Wikileaks has filed in the EU against Visa et al for the blockade I described earlier. They face no penalty for unethically seizing someone's assets, but they'll be considered facilitators subject to felony charges if they don't comply "within 5 days". Even if they want to fight it on behalf of customers, they can't.

And why shouldn't they?  If someone is violating the law, then those that are helping them are also violating the law.

Project IP is a similar copyright protection law.  If people are violating copyrights, even after getting warned by the government, then they should be punished.  I applaud the attempts to protect the artists that make these entertaining mediums that some people pirate-tize.

[@random]

Please note that I'm absolutely not speaking for Kumoricon, or predicting how Kumoricon will handle the implications of SOPA. I'm speaking only for myself, from my own personal opinion.

There still is the other bill, Protect IP Act.

I think random is correct. Are you in law school, random?

Thank you for the encouragement. (^_^) I'm not in law school, though, I'm just a nosy old man who sometimes reads the full text of a law to find out what they've hidden in the fine print. Especially when it has the potential to affect something I care about a lot, like Kumori.

AMV's wouldn't apply for various reasons.  For example, your getting random clips that are not in the original order.  Also, the original audio files (at least for what I call "genuine" AMV's) are not in the AMV's.  Therefore, the copyright laws that relate to illegal viewings doesn't apply.  As for the copyright theft, if you indicate where you got the audios and visuals for the AMV, (in other words, cite the sources), then you'll be fine, assuming that you got them legally.  If you got them illegally, then you've violated the law, whether you're making an AMV or not.

Possessing a recording doesn't give a person license to publicly perform it - remember all those notices about "for private exhibition only" that they used to stick in videotapes? Putting something on youtube would be a public performance.

YMMV on whether Fair Use would apply, but the law is written to "shoot first, ask questions later." Your opportunity to defend yourself will be months later, after spending thousands of dollars at the very least. And it'll be a complete crapshoot. Most sites, individuals, and organizations will be leery of taking such a chance.

You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.

Well, I can't say anything regarding the site you're talking about, since I don't know who they are, but SOPA is designed to focus on the sites that are violating copyright laws.

The key point I was trying to make, but I managed to bury in a sea of TLDR instead, was this: You do not have to provide content to be punished. All you have to do is link to it. That's what happened to Rojadirecta, despite being declared legal by the courts in its own country (Spain).

If you think about what that means for both search engines and user-generated content sites, that's really scary. And it might explain why Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and a variety of other big names in the Internet have come out strongly against SOPA.

Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

Anyone that the Attorney General sees violating the copyright laws will be told to stop first, given time to stop, and then punished should they continue on.  If anything, SOPA is a very forgiving-sounding law.

That's the opposite of what the DoJ has already been doing even before the law's passage, with operations like "In Our Sites". See earlier link for details. Rojadirecta was seized with no prior warning, and has been fighting it for several months now. The owner got off lucky, though, in that he wasn't hit with the asset seizure that SOPA threatens.

[Washougal_Otaku]

So, what were they?  I don't see why this is relevant to the argument.  A company in Spain had its domain seized... why?  For streaming sporting events?  Did they have the legal right to show them?

This isn't the same thing as illegally downloading anime or music, nor to AMV creations.  Sports organizations have legal claims to their events.  If you go to s pro game with a camcorder, you're asked to take it back to your car, or you're denied entrance to the game.  Cameras are fine, but nothing that can record.  You can't show sporting events, not even clips, unless you have consent from said sporting corporation.  If Rojadirecta is guilty of this, then they should have their domain taken away.  Their argument is that this is limiting their online traffic; what kind of argument is that?  A poor one.  Nothing here changes my stance on a possible law that doesn't even relate to Rojadirecta.

[@random]

The key point I was trying to make, but I managed to bury in a sea of TLDR instead, was this: You do not have to provide content to be punished. All you have to do is link to it. That's what happened to Rojadirecta, despite being declared legal by the courts in its own country (Spain).

If you think about what that means for both search engines and user-generated content sites, that's really scary. And it might explain why Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and a variety of other big names in the Internet have come out strongly against SOPA.

Why the US DoJ seizing Rojadirecta's domain for the crime of linking to copyrighted content hosted elsewhere is pertinent to SOPA: SOPA legalizes seizing both foreign and domestic websites on a wider scale and to a greater degree, just for linking. (Among several other niceties.)

_{To reiterate, I'm not speaking on behalf of Kumori or trying to predict how Kumori should react to SOPA}
That means every search engine, every social network, every forum, everything with user-generated content has to disable linking or risk facing the same thing. It would be an impossible battle to try to keep all links scrubbed clean. It also means the US has unilaterally decided it owns the Internet and can take it away from anyone they want to, and screw other countries' laws giving greater freedom of speech than we enjoy.

How would we react if Turkey announced tomorrow that it was going to start banning Turkish people from looking at US websites that insult Kemal Ataturk (which is illegal in Turkey)? Some of us would laugh at them for it, some would sympathize with the Turkish people, most just wouldn't care. But what would we think if they announced they were going to take every website that insults Ataturk off the Internet altogether?

That's how other countries are looking at us right now.

[reppy]

This is pretty interesting, taken from the comments on that page:

Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

[jaqua]

I thought it'd be interesting to see where people on the forums lie on the political spectrum... So if you take this test you can get a result like this one:



This is mine obviously. Apparently my views are close to those held by The Dalai Lama, which I think is totally rad.

[@random]

Apparently I'm close to Nelson Mandela, which is a little confusing.

[Malaria]

Politically, I value economic justice as a means for social justice, cosmopolitanism, acculturation over assimilation, and the redress of generations of social and economic opportunities lost for women and minority groups.



It really shows.

[reppy]

I've taken this a few times . . and this is generally pretty consistent with how I've scored so far.

[Washougal_Otaku]

I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI.  (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)

Going back to the SOPA, I'd like to see where people are getting this crap.  What I found, which is provided by Congree, sounds quite lenient compared to what you guys, as well as these "sources," are saying.  But whatever; how about we drop this particular subject and move on to something else, eh?

[Malaria]

You said that you're getting your info directly from Congress. Assuming Congress is exposing everyone to corporate mistreatment knowingly, (I'm not saying whether or not they are) what incentive do they have to provide you with accurate and complete information? Do you ask a five year old whether they ate all the cookies, or do you look in the cookie jar and at the crumbs on their face?

The only part of Congress that doesn't have at least a little incentive to lie to your face is the Congressional Budget Office. They get regular salaries no matter what Congress does.

[reppy]

I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI.  (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)

I suppose the inference is that people on the left care more about art than people on the right, even if the art isn't economically viable.  Basically, a person on the left would see a social value to supporting a museum or theater whereas someone that was more capitalist-minded would say that if it can't afford to survive on its own then it shouldn't exist.

That's just my best guess, though.

[HalcyonFour]

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Same results as most of the people here. Thanks for the link!

I thought I was going to get authoritarian, but I guess not! And thank God I'm not on the libertarian right...I don't want to be on the same side as the Randians. And I think it's freaking awesome how I'm closer to Nelson Mandela/Gandhi.

[HalcyonFour]

And jaqua, has anyone ever told you that you look like Mark Ruffalo?

[Chibachi Nero]

...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.



Mine doesn't surprise me much. I'm a bit more of a communist than the Dalai Lama.

[Animeman73]

My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.

[HalcyonFour]

...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.

My bad; I've never seen that show. ^^;

My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.

I know about his loose ties with JBS; I also know about the ghostwritten newsletters, his Randian views, and his connections to Alex Jones and implied belief in globalism. As far as I'm concerned, every candidate will have imperfections. No one is perfect. As I recall, Mr. Barry Obama was praised as a champion of Change when he was elected. The man was heavily backed/funded by Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, La Raza, and the Black Panthers. It's OK to vote for a guy like him him when he's backed by these kinds of constituents, right? But it's not OK to back a strict constitutionalist ignorantly called a racist who will vote against popular laws on principle; will speak out against the the Federal Reserve; defend my rights to consume raw milk and use alternative medicine; and defend a foreign policy based on peace.

I have done plenty of research on Dr. Ron Paul, and while I do not support everything he does or stands for (I am very wary of JBS and I can't stand Ayn Rand), he is going to get my vote. I want the corporate marionettes out of office and I want my civil liberties protected.

If you disagree, I completely respect that. But thus far, you have failed to provide proper rebuttals to my arguments. You seem to be an Obama supporter. I highly encourage you to do your research as well.

[Animeman73]

...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.

My bad; I've never seen that show. ^^;

My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.

I know about his loose ties with JBS; I also know about the ghostwritten newsletters, his Randian views, and his connections to Alex Jones and implied belief in globalism. As far as I'm concerned, every candidate will have imperfections. No one is perfect. As I recall, Mr. Barry Obama was praised as a champion of Change when he was elected. The man was heavily backed/funded by Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, La Raza, and the Black Panthers. It's OK to vote for a guy like him him when he's backed by these kinds of constituents, right? But it's not OK to back a strict constitutionalist ignorantly called a racist who will vote against popular laws on principle; will speak out against the the Federal Reserve; defend my rights to consume raw milk and use alternative medicine; and defend a foreign policy based on peace.

I have done plenty of research on Dr. Ron Paul, and while I do not support everything he does or stands for (I am very wary of JBS and I can't stand Ayn Rand), he is going to get my vote. I want the corporate marionettes out of office and I want my civil liberties protected.

If you disagree, I completely respect that. But thus far, you have failed to provide proper rebuttals to my arguments. You seem to be an Obama supporter. I highly encourage you to do your research as well.

I appreciate you're respecting my views lass. But didn't anyone ever tell you it's not a good idea to assume anything?  Because the truth is...I voted for McCain and Palin in the last eleection. This Moderate Democrat has never been afraid to when necessary go against his own party and I saw what Barack Obama was when he was merely candidate Obama back in '08.

Corporate Marionaettes this, Corporate marionettes that. I've heard the talk and while I DEFINITELY don't approve of what the Banks did (There's enough blame on that score to go around.) that whole "The Bigc orporateions" talk is another conspiracy theory hatched by a number of anti-entrepreneurial organizations. Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.

And you're the second person I''ve heard mention doing "Research" and well...I have and well no matter how folks try to rearrange restoring the gold standard whether they call it "backing up the dollar with gold" or whatever, if it looks, walks, quacks, and swims like a duck it's a duck. Also you can do all the overly complicated research you can but if you can't apply the K.I.S.S. theory (My version which is less insulting being Keep It Simple Sherlock.) then you could be very well electing someone who's going to use the constitution to essentially make themselves dictator. You're welcome to believe as you will lass. But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself essentially president for life/dictator.

I appreciate you don't agree with everything he says that's actuallya  refreshing change from a lot opf Ron Paul supporters.

I do agree we need a flat tax that would make our ridiculously complcated tax system WAAAAY less so. And if we legalize and Tax marijuana the way we do cigrettes and alcohol this country wuill not only have a great source of income we'll also be REALLY socking it to the drug lords who get a little over 50% of their profits from selling Marijuana.

That's just my take on things.

[jaqua]

...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.

NO DON'T LISTEN HALCYON THIS IS ME I SWEAR man i wish i looked like mark ruffalo oh jeez

But no dude, whoa, I never realized how similar Mark Ruffalo and Andrew Scott look. My mind is blown. 8| you should watch sherlock oh man it's soooo goooood

I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI.  (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)

I suppose the inference is that people on the left care more about art than people on the right, even if the art isn't economically viable.  Basically, a person on the left would see a social value to supporting a museum or theater whereas someone that was more capitalist-minded would say that if it can't afford to survive on its own then it shouldn't exist.

That's just my best guess, though.

This is kinda how I see it, too.

[jaqua]

My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.