Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Jan 18, 2012.
That's their job: to twist words.
How did you expect them to react?
The fire hurts their feet. They're gonna yelp some, it's to be expected.
Dodd went from a horrible senator to a shill for the industry. He has been in their back pocket for years.
It is amazing how they can call websites abusing their power when the MPAA supports laws that do much worse.
****ing disgusting. It should be illegal for politicians to leave office and go to work for the very industries they regulated for years. Our system is so corrupt. Even Larry Craig, the guy who likes to get his dick diddled in airport men's rooms is a lobbyist.
I find it funny they talk about Corporate interests when Wikipedia runs off of donations.
Yep, did you really expect the MPAA to say anything else? Of course you didn't. They've pushed so much openly self-serving legislation through congress that nothing like this should surprising to anyone at this point.
It's not fair to call Dodd a shill - he is, in fact, openly on the MPAA's payroll. That doesn't make him any less of a charlatan, of course. He's the worst kind of career politican, mercenary to the core and without an atom of scruple.
Good point. Shill implies that he is posing as independent when clearly he isn't trying to hide the fact he is employed by them.
He is doing their dirty work even tho he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
He's made a very lucrative career doing just that. And I don't think he cares what he says, as long as the money keeps rolling in.
Reading that actually makes me want to kill. It's such utter garbage, rhetorical corporate vomit and flat out lies.
Here is how SOPA/PIPA can kill Wikipedia:
1) Somewhere, a picture, a reference or something than can somehow be construed as copyright protected is published. Doesn't matter if it actually is, mind you (MPAA has previously successfully removed content that did not belong to them from video sites, I think it was YouTube).
2) They are automatically blacklisted from DNS servers and payment services after a complaint is lodged.
3) They have a chance to prove their innocence in court (which turns the whole presumption of innocence thing on it's head, but hey, it's only a fundamental building block of modern society, right?), but one can in all fairness assume that the industry will make sure it takes years to get to court. Especially if their evidence is weak.
4) Wikipedia is basically dead.
Oh no, now you gone and done did it!!
People are not people, Corporations are people, and should be the only ones funding social change.
The U.S. needs new currency exchange rules, so that money cannot flow to these foreign entities.
Are we talking the same Chris Dodd as in Senator here ?
Former senator, yes
I'll admit it's been a while since i took a US History class but I must have learned everything wrong. I didn't realize that (1) protesting is an abuse of power and (2) to fix the said abuse of power, we need to take away freedom.
Thank you former Senator Dodd for clearing that up
No, you see, protest is fine, as long as it is not an inconvenience to anyone. I was just watching Battle in Seattle (WTO-1999 docudrama): those protesters were felons because not only did they trespass, cross police lines and inconvenience ordinary people, they shut down an expensive international conference and embarrassed the mayor, governor and police chief.
Protest is just fine if it never gets in our way and we are free to ignore it.
From the article:
Because if anyone knows how to be a corporate pawn it's Chris Dodd.
I'd have to disagree with you there. There is a line to what is socially acceptable protest. The WTO protests had vandalism, property destruction, protestors throwing molotov cocktails at police... it was more than just embarrassment and inconvenience.
If protests could not inconvenience others, then the Civil Rights Movement with its civil disobedience tactics would have been unacceptable. Occupy Wall Street would have been shut down immediately. Strikes of various kinds would also be bad as no workers would inconvenience customers. But they all existed... and some are even celebrated and/or looked up to (take Rosa Parks or MLK).
I think the SOPA Blackout was a perfectly reasonable way to protest and to bring attention to the matter.
I was there, I remember it. There was vandalism. There was no property destruction (some broken windows). There were no Molotov cocktails or any other form of violence on the part of the protesters. It was a large mass of people intent on stopping the meetings, which they did by sheer numbers.
I was being a little sarcastic in my comment about "inconvenience". Or, rather, depicting the establishment's view. Protests that can easily be ignored are basically worthless.
Oops. My bad. It was late and I was getting my facts and protests mixed up. Though....I would argue broken windows are destruction of property. Sorry for missing the sarcasm... sometimes I totally miss it
The arrogance of this man apparently knows no bounds: