Anyway, our reps take large amount of money from different companies, in return for... Nothing? Really? I don't think anyone believes that. Shareholders certainly don't.
Maybe, but you also might be thinking of it backwards. If you and I give money to Mike Masnick to run for office (because we agree the IP law needs to be trimmed back a bit) would we be hoping to influence him into doing what we want, or would we be recognizing that his opinions already align with ours, and by giving him campaign cash we help him succeed in his bid for election?
Yes. It either buys influence (whether the rep thinks so or not), or gives the appearance of influence. The former is worse, but the latter is pretty crappy, also.
What about private contributions? What about private contributions from CEOs of the extremely rich corporations that you just banned from donating cash directly? There's no real line you can draw that does what you want, except to ban donations from anybody and everybody. But then, only rich people (such as the aforementioned CEOs) can run for office in the first place.
Just because Microsoft wants to donate a hojillion dollars to an election campaign does not mean my vote is suddenly up for grabs. The candidate still has to impress me, the voter, before he gets my vote. If the news comes out that Microsoft gave him a hojillion dollars, I might be more skeptical of his platform.
Like bad speech, I think the answer is more good speech, not censorship or government bans.
I recently had a legitimate news website (that I could otherwise access) get blocked by my company's filter, and the only thing I can think is that they scrubbed it because it had the word "wikileaks" in the URL.
First Party: Infringer
Second Party: Online File Locker (for aiding 1st)
Third Party: Online Payment Processors (for aiding 2nd).
Fourth Party: Google (for sending traffic to 3rd)
Fifth Party: Advertisers (for providing funding to 4th)
Sixth Party: Random Internet Troll (for providing revenue to 5th)
Makes perfect sense. Get out your wallet, troll-boy!
Re: Re: Re: For Anyone Who Doesn't Want to Read the Link
that would never have harmed anyone.
I wouldn't go that far. I don't feel I'm qualified to make that kind of medical determination.
Sure, you and I may just take aspirin (as an example) for minor aches and pains, but there might be people out there taking it as a blood thinner, where ineffectiveness on its part could have deadly results.
Unless you have proof (or at least a reasonable statistical analysis) that they would have voted differently had those corporations not donated to their campaigns , it doesn't really mean anything.
t's oddly easy to avoid taking large amounts of money from companies
The amounts listed here aren't even large. They are actually quite tiny.
and then voting in ways that favor them
If a politicians takes money from a company, they should never vote in that company's interest afterwards? Or are you saying that politicians shouldn't ever take money from any company, in any amount, ever?
The former makes no sense, in my opinion, but the latter seems to be a defensible position.
Congressional records and Kroger's complaint say the trouble started at a manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico. The company learned in November 2008 that a batch of Motrin tablets didn't dissolve as fast as expected, impairing how much ibuprofen a consumer would get.
So the problem was that the pills were not as effective as they should have been.
The amount of effort needed to even start an online lawsuit is much higher than it is in normal terms. Just trying to determine who you should sue, with "safe harbor" hosts and services all either denying access to user information or providing that information at an incredibly slow pace is work by itself. Attempting to find jurisdiction, where the courts seemingly uninterested in addressing the issue fully is another problem. It goes on and on.
"Justice is hard! Best to just make it up as we go along."
I'm not really certain, however, that it doesn't turn out that even most of the "rebels" end up intellectually neutered in the end.
I feel rather lucky that I had exposure to a mix of educational techniques when I was growing up, including home-schooling, private schooling, and public school. Public schooling was by far the worst.
"Where do children go after their brain-washing session?"
Society?
"You mean to say that parents can't undo whatever it is you think the schools are doing to indoctrinate children."
Of course some can. I think the more generations go through the system, however, the less likely it is that a parent was not subject to the same effect. I still remember all the bullshit flag-waving revisionist history they forced down my throat when I was a kid; I'm still busy unlearning it.
"Its always an "us vs them" argument with you guys."
When one party in a negotiation declares that they have granted themselves control over every aspect of your life, and that they have all the means at their disposal necessary to carry out their decrees by force, then there's not much middle ground left.
I guess you can try negotiating with a mugger when he puts a gun to your head and tells you to give him your wallet, but I would consider that an "us vs. them" scenario.
Part of the reason teenagers are such a disagreeable lot, in my opinion, is that they have the life systematically choked out of them by the school system, which is bent on teaching them "respect" for people in authority instead seeking out and fanning the flames of any sparks of individuality.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
Maybe, but you also might be thinking of it backwards. If you and I give money to Mike Masnick to run for office (because we agree the IP law needs to be trimmed back a bit) would we be hoping to influence him into doing what we want, or would we be recognizing that his opinions already align with ours, and by giving him campaign cash we help him succeed in his bid for election?
Yes. It either buys influence (whether the rep thinks so or not), or gives the appearance of influence. The former is worse, but the latter is pretty crappy, also.
What about private contributions? What about private contributions from CEOs of the extremely rich corporations that you just banned from donating cash directly? There's no real line you can draw that does what you want, except to ban donations from anybody and everybody. But then, only rich people (such as the aforementioned CEOs) can run for office in the first place.
Just because Microsoft wants to donate a hojillion dollars to an election campaign does not mean my vote is suddenly up for grabs. The candidate still has to impress me, the voter, before he gets my vote. If the news comes out that Microsoft gave him a hojillion dollars, I might be more skeptical of his platform.
Like bad speech, I think the answer is more good speech, not censorship or government bans.
On the post: DoD Blocking Access To Techdirt Because It's About 'Computers And Internet'?
Re:
On the post: Third Parties Increasingly Targeted In Infringement Cases
Re:
Second Party: Online File Locker (for aiding 1st)
Third Party: Online Payment Processors (for aiding 2nd).
Fourth Party: Google (for sending traffic to 3rd)
Fifth Party: Advertisers (for providing funding to 4th)
Sixth Party: Random Internet Troll (for providing revenue to 5th)
Makes perfect sense. Get out your wallet, troll-boy!
On the post: J&J Sued For Trying To Avoid Recall By Sending People To Buy Up Defective Motrin
Re: Re: Re: For Anyone Who Doesn't Want to Read the Link
I wouldn't go that far. I don't feel I'm qualified to make that kind of medical determination.
Sure, you and I may just take aspirin (as an example) for minor aches and pains, but there might be people out there taking it as a blood thinner, where ineffectiveness on its part could have deadly results.
On the post: J&J Sued For Trying To Avoid Recall By Sending People To Buy Up Defective Motrin
Re: Re: For Anyone Who Doesn't Want to Read the Link
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Freedom from the Press
I like that. +1 for you!
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re:
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to see real corruption...
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
The amounts listed here aren't even large. They are actually quite tiny.
and then voting in ways that favor them
If a politicians takes money from a company, they should never vote in that company's interest afterwards? Or are you saying that politicians shouldn't ever take money from any company, in any amount, ever?
The former makes no sense, in my opinion, but the latter seems to be a defensible position.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
Re: Re: As I Said In The Other Thread
I'm fairly certain most (all?) politicians are corrupt, but not because a seriously flawed statistic implied that they kinda might be, sorta.
On the post: J&J Sued For Trying To Avoid Recall By Sending People To Buy Up Defective Motrin
For Anyone Who Doesn't Want to Read the Link
So the problem was that the pills were not as effective as they should have been.
On the post: Let's Try This Again: Even If There's No Corruption, The Appearance Of Corruption Hurts Representative Government
As I Said In The Other Thread
On the post: Senator Wyden Calls Out Content Companies For Wanting To Censor The Internet
The Trolls Are Out In Force Today
On the post: The Companies Who Support Censoring The Internet
Re: counterfeiting and law suits.
So then you don't disagree with the premise of the post.
On the post: As Expected, FCC Says Okay To Comcast/NBC Universal Deal
Re:
Yes, because monopolies never came into being due to "strong regulation".
On the post: Customs Boss Defends Internet Censorship; Says More Is On The Way
Re:
"Justice is hard! Best to just make it up as we go along."
On the post: Customs Boss Defends Internet Censorship; Says More Is On The Way
Re: Re: Bombardment
FTFY
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not The Only Example
I'm not really certain, however, that it doesn't turn out that even most of the "rebels" end up intellectually neutered in the end.
I feel rather lucky that I had exposure to a mix of educational techniques when I was growing up, including home-schooling, private schooling, and public school. Public schooling was by far the worst.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Not The Only Example
Society?
"You mean to say that parents can't undo whatever it is you think the schools are doing to indoctrinate children."
Of course some can. I think the more generations go through the system, however, the less likely it is that a parent was not subject to the same effect. I still remember all the bullshit flag-waving revisionist history they forced down my throat when I was a kid; I'm still busy unlearning it.
"Its always an "us vs them" argument with you guys."
When one party in a negotiation declares that they have granted themselves control over every aspect of your life, and that they have all the means at their disposal necessary to carry out their decrees by force, then there's not much middle ground left.
I guess you can try negotiating with a mugger when he puts a gun to your head and tells you to give him your wallet, but I would consider that an "us vs. them" scenario.
On the post: Indoctrinating Children To Hate Freedom Of The Press?
Re: Re: Not The Only Example
Next >>