Homework Assignment: Go Talk To Your Representative Or Senator About SOPA/PIPA
from the do-it! dept
We've already discussed how things will work at the end of the month when the Senate comes back into session and Harry Reid tries to put PIPA to a vote. However, as we noted, that only works if enough Senators are convinced to support a plan to move forward with PIPA and approve the first bill to allow an American internet blacklist to occur. That means there are just a few weeks to make sure that Senators are aware of the widespread outrage about these bills, and that they're not left falling for the lies that Hollywood and the bills' sponsors are spreading.One way to do this is to go see your Senators and your Congressional Reps over the next few weeks. With Congress out of session, it's pretty typical for elected officials to hold "town hall meetings," and it's important for people to attend these sessions and speak up. I know that many people feel apathetic towards elected officials, and don't believe anything said to them will make a difference -- but that's not true. If they're at least hearing about the controversy and concerns enough, at least some will recognize that this bill is not something they want their names associated with and will back off. Unfortunately, these meetings are often scheduled with very little notice, and the standards/requirements to get in vary drastically. Thankfully, folks have been putting together some great resources to help you figure out when these are being held and how to take part.
- The good folks at Reddit are helping to crowdsource info about meetings.
- There's a Meetup.com page listing out known townhall sessions. Again, these often appear with very little notice, so check back often.
- Even without townhall sessions, you can and should reach out to your elected officials about meeting with them to express your concerns. Even if they don't actually take the meeting, hearing from enough people will alert them that there's widespread concern. Internet Freedom has set up a neat forum system, organized by state, that will both highlight when there are townhalls and, more importantly, provide details on how to request a meeting with your Senators. On top of that, it will allow coordination for those who do get meetings to go with a group of similarly concerned residents.
- EFF has a page about in district meetings, why they're important and how to set them up. It also has a one-pager with some basic facts that sums up the problems (pdf).
- Public Knowledge has also put together a quick two-page citizen packet (pdf) that highlights problems with the bills, and includes some "sample questions" that people might want to ask if possible.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, get involved, meetings, pipa, protect ip, senate, sopa, town hall
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hasn't the MPAA/RIAA ever heard of private property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it what foreign pirates are stealing and monetizing for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Private property is Google - and every other Internet company's - websites and associated infrastructure, like DNS servers. You don't own it. Keep your filthy looter hands off of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does your doctor know you got out of your straitjacket and accessed his computer? Either you're bat-shit crazy or you're Gorehound forgetting to sign in. Either way, up the thorazine dose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you just a mental defective or do I have to explain it to you really, really slowly so you can get it through your miniscule brain that copyright is a government monopoly, not private property like web and DNS servers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and, given your definition of the word 'stealing' I see nothing wrong with it. 'Stealing' as in copying I'm fine with, 'stealing' as in depriving someone of a (limited/scarce) tangible property that they 'own' I think is more unacceptable.
IP laws deprive me of my (otherwise abundant) right to copy and they steal taxpayer money to provide you with the necessary enforcement, taxpayer money that I'm deprived of. That definition of the word stealing is closer to the definition of the word that I consider wrong since my right to copy exists outside of government and I'm being deprived of a natural right.
I say abolish IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can they be making money competing with free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We should wash his mouth out with SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i guess that'll turn anyone off to the idea so maybe we should try it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do not support SOPA because I don't think anyone should have any liability when it comes to issues of IP, especially since I am (almost if not) an IP abolitionist. So, again, your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How nice it would be for domestic infringers if the sole remedy available was an injunction to cease their infringing activity, and failing to do so their access to money was made more difficult.
Seems to me here is a perfect opportunity for users who simply cannot live without these sites to crowdsource their operating expenses. After all, this is just one of many business models that is constantly trumpeted here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When are American authorities start dragging people out of connection flights?
Could a blogger end up in some wanted list on American borders?
What would happen if other countries started to do the same, would American business man be able to wonder around the world freely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attack the person if you can't argue against his facts
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."
Your post applied this rule perfectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attack the person if you can't argue against his facts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 6th, 2012 @ 8:17pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 6th, 2012 @ 8:17pm
...copyright & IP are kind of starting to sound like religion...
well, at least most religions have the benefit of the doubt in that one cannot disprove (or prove) most of their beliefs, copyright/IP worshipers don't have this luxury
didn't stop them from blindly believing it though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 6th, 2012 @ 8:17pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cryin' and tryin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No true Constitution Loving Born US Citizen would want to see any kind of Censorship come to our Free Country.We have been steadily seeing our Rights taken away.The line has been drawn.
SOPA/PIPA = WAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the reddit link
JeanVanDeVelde writes
"I went to my representative's town hall (Howard Berman, D-CA, SOPA co-sponsor) on Wednesday evening (1/4) and was refused an opportunity to read a 2 minute statement. I agreed to truncate my remarks and go without my written notes. I was then informed that I could only ask a question, I assume the next step was to screen my question but I left the meeting, sent an email expressing how offended I was by the closed nature of the event and followed up with a call to his office the next day. I still have not received any form of reply, much less an apology and a chance to have my voice heard on this matter.
I now understand why OWS uses the "mic check" strategy. The staff was there to stonewall and close people out.
I'd love it if Reddit could join me with a couple of nicely placed phone calls to Mr. Berman inquiring about why people were refused a chance to make a statement and why the "town hall" for constituents within his district was used as an opportunity for Mr. Berman to make campaign statements regarding the forthcoming re-districting primary.
This is one of the main guys being paid directly and by lobbyists on behalf of the few media companies that control our industry here in Los Angeles."
Response from J-Ro
"Good on you for taking the time to go. Tip for next time: Do what you need to do to get a chance to speak (ie. say you agree to their conditions), then speak your mind."
and response from JeanVanDeVelde again
"yeah, in the future i'll do a little more social engineering. I was expecting microphone lines (like every public meeting i've ever been to), but it's 100% politics. tough game and i'm not willing to play it, I feel like it's more effective to do activist and volunteer work."
http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/o5p6h/help_us_crowdsource_data_on_town_hall_meetings /
Where is this open democracy and free speech you speak of? It doesn't exist. They blocked free speech out from every avenue outside the Internet, from wrongfully granted government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies to political town hall meetings. and, to the extent that the MSM pretends to oppose SOPA/PIPA et al and to the extent that they cover these IP issues with some iota of balance (instead of merely being one sided) and to the extent that they're no longer blatantly dishonest, it's only because of the Internets influence on the media. Mark my word, they intend to turn the Internet into the same censored platform they wrongfully turned everything outside the Internet into through bad laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If this is not such a pressing issue then there is little need to pass it and you have little need to be here worrying so much about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then you'd think our elected officials would have more pressing things on their minds as well, rather than trying to push this piece of corporate legislation through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If only you applied as much thought and talent to the real world as you do to pointless trolling, maybe you'd get somewhere in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He spends his time reading the script for new jewels to expose us to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they have jobs and healthcare on their minds then of course they would also want to oppose SOPA/PIPA since those bills would have a negative effect on jobs and healthcare for ordinary people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then perhaps Congress should concern themselves with more pressing issues, like jobs, healthcare, the 405. You know, the real world stuff - not propping up companies who don't want to adapt to changing markets and real competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many citizens of this country were taught that the elected members of congress represented the interests of their constituents. It is apparent this is not true, I'm not sure that it ever was.
When used as a vehicle to prosthelytize a better name might be circle jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already did.
http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/01/sopapipa-response-from-austin-scott.html - (georgia's 8th)
http://www.piratepartyofgeorgia.org/2012/01/sopapipa-response-from-johnny-isakson.html - one of Georgia's senators
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they would care, why?
Unless you happen to be one of those who give them big donations, they don't care.
Witness: the Patriot Act, the stimulus bill, the tarp bill (which even Nancy Pelosi granted was about 95% against in phone calls to her office). They. Do. Not. Care.
Nearly every campaign is won by the person with the most money to spend. It is 90+%. It is in a politicians best interest to advocate for the people that donate. Anything else is a waste of their time.
I don't think there is a practical solution, but for the foreseeable future, I'll be getting a write in ballot and putting "None of the Above!". Maybe if enough people do that, we'll get a little change. Maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And they would care, why?
I wonder if that would work. Plenty of politicians get elected without carrying over 50% of the popular vote. If you win with 43% of the vote, are you really the "chosen" representative or just winning by default? What happens when a ton of disgruntled write-in votes takes the candidate down to the point where he or she wins with 15-20% of the popular vote? My guess is that the candidate still takes office, simply for coming out on top.
I'd love it if falling below a certain percentage meant all the candidates had to run again. And again. And again, until drained completely of campaign finances and maybe, just maybe, the desire to "represent" a group of citizens who have clearly demonstrated that they'd rather be represented by no one than by anyone on the ballot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And they would care, why?
The winner carried almost 60% of the vote, but that comes out to only 10% of the actual eligible voters.
You don't really need a lot of votes, or even a real majority, to win.
Look at it this way. Let's say it's a small town and there are only 100 people who are able to vote, but only 40 plan to vote. 20 for the democrat, 20 for the republicans.
I don't really need to worry about most of them. I need to put most of my efforts into the other 60, but I don't even really need most of them. I just need to win maybe 15 people who weren't planning to vote before. If I can then convert just 2 people from each of the big 2 parties, the vote ends up being 19 for me, 18 for the democrat, 18 for the republican.
You don't need a majority, you just need to win over the right minority.
The hardest part is just getting the right information into to right hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And they would care, why?
This is why disenfranchisement and gerrymandering work so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/Public%20Knowledge%20citizen%20packet_1.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Homework Assignment: Go Read the article on Talking To Your Representative Or Senator about SOPA/PIPA Before Talking To Your Representative Or Senator about SOPA/PIPA"
FTFY
it's not the best explanation ever but pretty much says the same crap as what the bills themselves says, except without all of the long drawn out bullcrap & subtle wording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't that give us an unfair advantage? I would imagine that most representatives have yet to read the bill they're voting on. Plenty have already been told how to vote by helpful lobbyists which makes reading the bill a waste of everyone's time. There may be a few reps who've skimmed through it looking for a place to insert some pork, but it appears that the only representatives who have read it are those opposing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, no, you attack not only people here, but every expert who has come out against it as being wrong or ignorant, yet never explain yourself with anything as solid as citations or evidence. Pathetic, as always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least one technology expert has made it clear that filtering is acceptable in some circumstances, but in his opinion the subject matter of SOPA/PIPA is not such a circumstance. This is a policy, and not a technical, argument, and yet it keeps being promoted by others as a technology matter. This too has been presented.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that the bill raising the majority of ire, SOPA, and currently pending before the House is not the original bill. And yet, a plethora of those who raise the hue and cry of "censorship", "due process", "break the internet", etc. continue to advance opinions based upon a version of the bill that is no longer pending.
The above are exemplary, and by no means a comprehensive list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well that just shows how little you understand doesn't it?
You cannot separate technology and policy so neatly as you would like. The circumstances of filtering WILL AFFECT technical issues. The simplest of these are the volume of data that you wish to filter and the nature of the discriminant between material to be filtered and that which is not to be filtered. Both of these factors have a huge effect on whether filtering is technically practical without major impact on the network infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, from my reading of what he has said, his position seems to be the exact reverse of what you claim. He does not have a problem with the motivations (allegedly) behind SOPA/PIPA but says that the technical effects of the proposed filtering will be a disaster.
Of course one CAN separate technology and policy IN PRINCIPLE (as Paul Vixie does) but one cannot separate them IN PRACTICE in the way that you claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/coica_and_secure_dns/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. The volume of child abuse material is enormously less than the volume of copyright infringement material.
2. It is easy enought to determine the nature of child abuse material by simply looking at it. Copyright infringement - as demonstrated by the megaupload video case is much more difficult to determine and therefore the risk of an incorrect takedown is much greater.
As a consequence of these two facrts the volume of disruption, whilst bearable in the child abuse case, would be enormously greater in the copyright infringement case
I'm sure that these facts wee in the back of Paul Vixie's mind when he wrote the paragraph - so your naive interpretation of it is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This articulates a policy argument. "Yes, we can do it in either case, but we believe one is more important than the other."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's like cutting someone's heart out when they have the flu. It's a massivy bad law that pays lip service to actually correcting the issue, without doing a single thing to solve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me that the WTO would have someting to say about that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No - he is saying that the technical measures that worked in one case could also be applied to the other - but they would not have the same result in the second case - which in my book is a technical issue.
You see there are two types of technical issues. Those that apply at a micro scale - ie whether it is possible to block a single URL - and the macro scale - whether it is possible to block all URLs that meet a particular criterion.
The latter is still a technical issue,
I think what has happened here is this. Paul Vixie is using the concept of a technical issue in terms of only the micro scale.
Consequently his concept of a policy issue is different to yours and it is wrong of you to assume that because he says there are no technical issues (meaning no small scale ones) that he therefore believes that it is only a policy issue (in your terms) - meaning it is a matter of choice preference and desire and that there are no further practical issues to consider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If people start using alternatives to bypass blocks, how is DNSSEC going to secure those?
The answer it doesn't and can't do it, also censoring things gives a tremendous incentive for people to find alternatives, so they will happen, and DNS becomes less useful for blocking anything even things that we as a whole would want too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You will have to learn how to live with the bad, one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it comes down to freedom vs censorship, I will take even exposure to offensive materials(i.e. child abuse, racism, etc) any day.
Censoring those things doesn't stop the spread of harmful acts, it doesn't deter real criminals and it should be up to individuals to erect their own filters around them, not any government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
<citation needed>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE the great SOPA Wars
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread793936/pg7
SOPA/PIPA = WAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its Foolish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm trying to understand and put together
diff +
Mongoose +
Python +
PostgreSQL +
Git +
USC (United States Constitution +
PHP +
Lua +
argument map +
thinking maps +
Goals:
- Create a database with the laws of any country.
- Create a database of proposals(add, sub, mod), that can be visualized, voted and have stats tranferred to others so they can combine that information to get a picture of the acceptance or not of any proposal. It must be secure and anonymous while protecting against flooding(aka fraud) as much as possible.
- Create the equivalent of an instant messenger where people can group together anonymously with only pseudonymous to identify them.
- Create a historical database with information about public organizations and public figures and how they voted on issues, how many times they changed their minds, who finance them, public opinion of the instituion or individual(aka like or dislike), public confidence.
eDemocry is coming.
For now is just a dream and I'm not a programmer :)
The point being start the process of identifying the data that people need to make better decisions and the ways to deliver that to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
diff +
Mongoose +
Python +
PostgreSQL +
Git +
USC (United States Constitution +
PHP +
Lua +
argument map +
thinking maps +
Goals:
- Create a database with the laws of any country.
- Create a database of proposals(add, sub, mod), that can be visualized, voted and have stats tranferred to others so they can combine that information to get a picture of the acceptance or not of any proposal. It must be secure and anonymous while protecting against flooding(aka fraud) as much as possible.
- Create the equivalent of an instant messenger where people can group together anonymously with only pseudonymous to identify them.
- Create a historical database with information about public organizations and public figures and how they voted on issues, how many times they changed their minds, who finance them, public opinion of the instituion or individual(aka like or dislike), public confidence.
eDemocry is coming.
For now it is just a dream and I'm not a programmer :)
The point being start the process of identifying the data that people need to make better decisions and the ways to deliver that to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe that was sarcasm?
LOL
Yes, I am the internet grammar police. You may address me as Madam Apostrophe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eDemocracy is coming
- Create a database with the laws of any country.
- Create a database of proposals(add, sub, mod), that can be visualized, voted and have stats tranferred to others so they can combine that information to get a picture of the acceptance or not of any proposal(aka argument map + voting stats). It must be secure and anonymous while protecting against flooding(aka fraud) as much as possible.
- Create the equivalent of an instant messenger where people can group together anonymously with only pseudonymous to identify them.
- Create a historical database with information about public organizations and public figures and how they voted on issues, how many times they changed their minds, who finance them, public opinion of the instituion or individual(aka like or dislike), public confidence.
eDemocry is coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is tiresome.
The US political environment is essentially a two party system, Democrat and Republican. When it comes to representing their constituents, neither party can be called exemplary. Neither party can claim the high road, and both of them will sell your ass up the river for a dollar. Both parties have their die-hard cheerleaders who will blow smoke up yer ass at any and all opportunities - so knock it off already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not true - the particular democratic mechanisms used also enter into this. First past the post systems are particularly bad. PR systems are better - particularly if you a a bit of direct democracy - Swiss style.
On the other hand if you taske away government altogether you end up with Somalia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
.... general, all encompassing statements.
I do not see any evidence of either party reducing the size of government, perhaps you have an example. I see where revenue is moved from one bucket to another, but how does that reduce anything? Making general statements about a particular political party in the absence of specific details is rather worthless dribble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The liberals get in power and they LOVE IT, EXPAND IT, tell everyone they will be protected and use it to get airport scanners put in to the company with lobbyists who gave tons of money to the democratic party. These are examples of why you cannot increase the size of government or give them more power- they will use it to get the campaign funds to stay in power. They rationalize it as doing it for their constituents but they are just doing it to stay in power and end up corrupted.
The only answer regardless of which side you are on is to reduce the size of government- is the person you are voting for going to do that? Have they done that so far?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To what level exactly???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only answer is to make government smaller- period.
There is no such thing as a large organization that doesn't have some corruption going on within it. Business, Government, etc...giving them any power at all is a mistake especially when they claim they are only trying to help you. If you haven't realized yet that there isn't a selfless politician then you are an idealistic fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Discussing specific items which can be associated with facts is much preferable to generalities which are loosely applied to almost anything.
"The only answer is to make government smaller- period."
- I see little evidence to support this claim. Sometimes in mathematics, there is only one correct answer - however elsewhere there usually are many answers, each with its own pros and cons. In addition, I assume you support the small government claims mostly espoused by one of the political parties. Do you seriously believe such tripe?
"giving them any power at all is a mistake"
- So, you are an anarchist then?
"If you haven't realized yet that there isn't a selfless politician then you are an idealistic fool."
- I'm glad you realize this and therefore will refrain from making sweeping generalizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What amount of debt is enough?
I am willing to wager the answer to you will depend on who is in office at the time the question is asked.
As the social security actuaries just passed 120 Trillion and are headed for a quadrillion in about 25 years- do you honestly think this path is sustainable? Do you understand that government is now at a point that it looks out for its own interests more than the interests of the citizen which is why so many unfavorable laws are being shoved through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You stated: "giving them any power at all is a mistake"
How does nothing equal something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You see little evidence to support that a smaller government is less likely to be A)corrupt and B) have the ability to abuse that power?
Patriot act was already cited as an example- hated by liberals while passed by conservatives when conservatives had power.
Liberals get into power and expand the act after saying they would repeal it and then use it to get money from lobbyists.
Healthcare law is doing the same thing. There are conservatives who are publicly stating they doubt it could be repealed and could aid them going forwards when they win control.
Every law passed equals power and money not just for the party in power but the next party that comes along. EPA is the same- waivers are granted to donors while they expand the laws to punish the other party.
Did you know that the last act GE did before moving their Xray technology to China was create EPA laws that prevented another company from building the same devices to compete here? Our laws state the company that helps form the laws of our country cannot then operate in that sector- well that was just fine by GE. They effectively shut down Siemens from building the devices here, as well. How did they do that? GEs CEO is on Obama's advisory committees.
Gerrymandering, court appointments, it is all done to keep and expand a power base it is the reason the both the OWS and Tea Parties are upset but they only see how it impacts them each will quiet down when their political party is in control but bitch when the tide turns as it does every few cycles in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some reality check for you guys
1. texas web users/ us population =17 176 661 / 313 232 044 = 0.0548368576, i.e 5 % of us population
2. texas web users/ texas population = 17 176 661/25,042,738=68 %
3. 1 million mails send to congress =1 million / 313 232 044 = 0.00319252139, i.e .3 %
4. us net users =77%= 239,893,600, total mails/ emails/ phone calls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]