“While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet…"posted by joe lisboa at 3:02 PM on January 14 [2 favorites]
Just curious: Has anyone publically asked Ron Paul about gay marriage and if so what level of support did he give it?Here's the relevant section in Wikipedia with citations.
He opposes it.
but he's not much worse towards gay rights than Obama from a legislative perspectiveFine we can disagree but I'll give that point to you, I've never really believed that Paul will help gay rights in any way. However, I think issues directly related to free speech and due process is a bigger issue that will impact how other issues (such as gay rights) are understood. With that respect, Obama is utterly failing, and this half-hearted SOPA/PIPA letter is no different than his actions before NDAA. It is indefensible.
Are you fucking kidding me?
I just want to say how brave it is of white men to risk 40 years of civil rights gains of women and minorities to protect their right to torrent Stargate.I'm not white, and I'm pretty sure Ron Paul thinks of Asians as "others," and is creeped out by us, I'm fairly certain he doesn't see me as a Real American. I don't care. His belief that civil liberties is a state issue is minor compared to Obama's fuckup with the NDAA and willingness to compromise basic due process with SOPA/PIPA. Racial and gender based civil liberties are easy to roll back, all the old racist people dying will make this less of an issue from a legislative perspective (but it's still will be a huge issue socially). Rolling back due process and freedom of speech is a lot harder. Obama is selling us out in the long run.
I just want to say how brave it is of white men to risk 40 years of civil rights gains of women and minorities to protect their right to torrent Stargate.On the other hand White dudes pulling the race card to defend their favorite candidates is like super brave.
Just curious: Has anyone publically asked Ron Paul about gay marriage and if so what level of support did he give it?Have you asked if Obama supports gay marriage? He opposes it. Ironically, he only started opposing it when he started to run for president. In Illinois, he supported it. He says its for "religious" reasons but he's said before that people shouldn't use religion to make policy choices. And not only that his church was pro gay! (I don't know that they supported gay marriage but they had gay members and were pro-gay overall)
[Can we dial it back some, please? Thanks. ]Er, I had most of this typed out before you posted that. It is a bit of a derail. We ought to be talking about Obama's stance on IP, which is actually interesting. And not very good.
Why is everyone convinced that SOPA/PIPA is going to become law?probably a different package with the same shit in it
Why is everyone convinced that SOPA/PIPA is going to become law? Everything I've read about it says passage in its current form isn't feasible.It's infeasible because of the freakout. Interestingly, I think most people think the effects are worse then they actually would be (at least at first).
He thinks that civil rights is a state issue. That is, if you want the right to eat at a restaurant with white people in Alabama, you're not going to be able to depend on the federal government enforcing the civil rights act. Hell, if you want the right to vote you better hope the state you're in decides to allow it.There is nothing preventing Texas from executing crack dealers today, except for the supreme court ruling that only allows murders to be executed. But they could put them in jail for life. The same way florida gave someone a life sentence for child-porn on their computer (one charge for each image, apparently)
And don't even think that the Ron Paul administration would end the war on drugs. He would make it a state issue, which means if Texas wants to execute crack dealers, it's just fine by him.
Go ahead and download any of it. It's perfectly legal, because under current law, you aren't obligated to determine the legality of the files you download online, and neither are the file sharing sites -- they're only obligated to respond to DMCA take down notices from copyright holders, and foreign sites aren't even obligated to do that.Yes, that's what the lobbyists who wrote SOPA are targeting. But the law can't, and doesn't, target specific sites. if SOPA is passed the following things will happen
SOPA is meant to remedy that by just taking those sites off the internet.
You can tone down the FUD there. Stories are already being published saying he has as strong an organization and as many (if not more) volunteers in every primary state than the entire GOP lineup combined. Are you going to try to convince those folks of their stupidity, too?But they won't volunteer as much as they did last time around. No one's actually gung-ho about Obama. I'm fairly certain I'm on the volunteer list you mentioned, as with many others who volunteered last time around. Obama has no substantial operations outside Chicago right now. When they start calling people up soon, they won't be turning up.
This will substantially raise transaction costs, and have huge impacts towards the internet, quite frankly, I've talked to many people at technology companies who say they will volunteer for Ron Paul, consequences be damned. You can call this immature and a "take your toys home" attitude. It doesn't matter, the moment he passes SOPA/PIPA/OPEN, it will be uncool to volunteer for Obama. You can make some kind of "LOLHIPSTERS" joke, but no one's going to volunteer for a candidate who acts like Obama. Obama won because of excellent GOTV and analytics, he's going to get ruined on that part because of this single issue.The echo chamber effect makes it difficult to figure out how important these things really are overall. But in terms of GOTV the people who volunteer are much more likely to be politically well informed. I would imagine they're more likely to connect with other political enthusiasts online, since they will be people who like to 'get involved', but that's just a guess. One thing though, you're definitely more likely to see the young, and you're definitely going to see the bored and unemployed, since they have the most free time. It seemed like OWS wasn't a very pro-Obama movement, overall. And they're still around, I guess, just not getting much media coverage.
No, I'm not confused, my point is that the Democrats didn't use the filibuster. Your mention of Hillary et al just serves to reinforce that point.If you're talking about the Iraq war, they didn't need to filibuster it. They had control of the senate, more then 50 seats. The could simply have voted against it. Instead, they voted a majority of democrats voted for it. 21 senate democrats voted no, 29 voted yes. You'll note the total is 50, which, compared to the republicans' 49 votes. The one independent at the time, ex-republican Jim Jeffords, who was caucusing with the democrats voted against it. Only 23 people voted no overall.
[Kucinich] is not only going to close guantanamo, he is going to tear it down with his bare hands.I don't know what this has to do with anything.
I'm telling you Kucinich/Sharpton '12
I was just trying to explain why they're going to pass something. And if you you seriously want to stop the worst excesses of SOPA, you're going to have to come up with some other plan to take down filestube, etc.Let's suppose a mugger comes up to you and demands you hand over all your money, and instead you negotiate and convince him to take half your money rather then all of it.
Put another way, federalism is always attractive to the party out of power. The American progressive movement, as a "party" that is not in power, is inclined to find Ron Paul attractive, even though much of what he actually supports ought to be an anathema to any real progressive. What's important is not what he stands for, however, but what he stands against. A progressive's vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the drug war, against the Iraq and Afghanistan boondoggles, against SOPA, against NDAA, etc., and perhaps most of all, against compromise.Well, it's a good thing I'm a liberal and not a "progressive".
It doesn't matter much that Ron Paul actually harbors many thoroughly anti-progressive beliefs about race and culture and abortion, or that he's as much a hypocrite as anyone else, especially on gay marriage and on abortion. The point, for his progressive supporters, is that he has greater ideological purity and less of a corporate taint than almost any of his more "reasonable" peers.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.Part of that "existing law" includes due process, habeas corpus, and all the other stuff regarding the judicial treatment of American citizens. This also includes indefinite detention, as it was made illegal in 1971 by The Non-Detention Act, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Right, you're just checking out of the debate, basically. I'd love to see nothing pass myself, but something is going to pass, and there's really nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is shape it.Right and this is a perfect example of what's so annoying about 'centrists' in general. You just assume that we're going to lose. Last I checked, fatalism is not inspiring.
Nonetheless, Obama did something, so he must be amazingly evil. Even if he did the very thing we all wanted him to do. That bastard!I notice you didn't actually quote anyone. That's because no one is saying that and you just want to vent your rage at people who aren't venerating dear leader hard enough.
Part of that "existing law" includes due process, habeas corpus, and all the other stuff regarding the judicial treatment of American citizens. This also includes indefinite detention, as it was made illegal in 1971 by The Non-Detention Act, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.Well, it's a good thing you'll be there to personally ensure that the next administration agrees with your interpretation of 'existing law' and NDAA instead of, for example, Lindsay Gram who actually wrote the bill and has a different interpretation. And definitely no one will end up in prison for years while cases wind their way through the supreme court.
It doesn't matter what Gram's interpretation is. The Supreme Court upheld the The Non-Detention Act in 2004, and it's an existing law. The NDAA actually clarifies things on indefinite detention that were previously quite vague, and apparently needed to go to the Supreme Court in order to be nailed down. Either way, it's a far cry from the contention that Obama is A-OK with American citizens being detained indefinitely; far enough away to be false.Oh, sorry. I was assuming the important thing is what's actually going to happen with future administrations given this law, not how it affects how people talk about Obama on the internet. It's also at odds with most actual media reports on the issue so I'm just going to assume it's wrong.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.It's an op ed. But you're claiming, apparently that the NYT is propagating an 'absurd meme that needs to die', that they're wrong, and that you're correct. I mean really, how could you expect anyone to take that seriously?
That New York Times op-ed isn't talking about the bill as it was passed. An amendment was added later to exempt american citizens and legal residents from those sections.Not true. Here's an article in Forbes written after the bill was passed:
The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.Here's an With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of Citizens
...
Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.
In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.I mean, I don't know what to say really. It's simply impossible that every major news article would get it wrong, while you and MSTPT got it right. Clearly, you're simply wrong on the facts here.
Heaven help me but I'm actually regretting supporting Boxer over Fiorina in 2010 despite the later's deep problems, and while Feinstein's challengers are shaping up to be a typical rogue's gallery from the mental hospital the Republican party has turned into, I don't know that I can vote for her after this.Do you think Carly Fiorina would have been better on SOPA? People need to learn how the primary system works, and take advantage of it.
Dude, this isn't a dick-waving contest to me. I'm just quoting the legislation itself, word-for-word, citing what the Supreme Court has ruled in 2004 against Donald Rumsfeld -- MSTPTNo, it's not a dick waving contest. You're wrong, and I'm pointing it out. If you don't want to believe EVERY MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLET ON THE PLANET then obviously that's certainly your choice. But it's 9/11 Truther / Alex Jones / Vaccines cause autism level crazy. My assumption was you just hadn't done the research, and didn't realize you're wrong.
It looks like we're at an impasse in this discussion, but I want to make really clear here what my motivations for even getting involved in this spittle fight were. Rather than showing you news stories reporting on the legislation, I'm trying to show you the legislation itself -- MSTPTYou're only showing a single paragraph, not the whole thing. I'm showing you news stories so that you can see that your 'interpretation' is at odds with the reality that everyone else in the country expects to see.
Myths about detention billHeh, that's Glenn Greenwald. I like the guy but he's someone that "centrists" will dismiss - Joe Kline called him a "Civil liberties Extremist", for example, for pointing out his mistakes. I made sure to link to "Authoritative" MSM sites, not liberal bloggers.
This article discusses the clause you mentioned, Marisa Stole the Precious Thing, but some others as well. The author's conclusions are in agreement with the majority of the press. -- mdn
Greenwald's not a legitimate source.See what I mean? With regards to the rest of the media, though. If you want to deny that stuff, fine. But really it's as reasonable a position being a 9/11 Truther or a Birther. Maybe you guys need a cute name. NDAAdner maybe.
And yes, the press gets stuff wrong all the time. The plain language of the bill says that US citizens are exempt from the sections in question. -- empath
shoot-first-ask-questions-later policies let police off the hook, and libel suits are regularly used to shut up citizens who get out of line. Grauniad, heal thyself.Actually, most police in Britain don't even carry guns. As a result, police shootings are very, very rare.
You're cherry picking news sources that say what you want it to say. Listing articles that agree with your favored interpretation isn't the same thing as making an argument.Why don't you cherry pick some contrary articles in the MSM? It stands to reason that if they existed, you would have done so already.
Last night on the show, Rachel looked at the import of the NDAA and President Obama's signing statement about how he intends to use the legislation. Under the new law, the U.S. government reserves for itself the right arrest and confine American citizens in military custody, without benefit of trial, indefinitely. President Obama says his administration won't do that, but the law remains a law.Doing a search for "site:cnn.com NDAA american citizens obama" (just CNN as a keyword doesn't bring up CNN's site) brings up this link which says:
In December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which makes indefinite military detention without charge or trial, including that of American citizens, a permanent feature of the American legal system.
If your candidate wants to leave crucial civil rights questions like gay marriage to the states you can't vote for them.I can't vote for a constitutional scholar that knowingly passes a law which egregiously violates due process.
Carl Levin:Because politicians are renown for their honesty and accuracy. He voted for NDAA and he's defending his vote. You can find plenty of politicians saying the opposite, including the authors of the provision, like Lindsay Graham. I mean Hillary Clinton said her vote for the Iraq war wasn't "really" a vote for war, it was just a vote for "the authority".
"Al Qaeda is at war with us," said Sen. Levin. "They brought that war to our shores. This is not just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, 'There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.'"
In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”They think the NDAA is unconstitutional, and thus illegal. They clearly, and explicity say that the NDAA does not allow for the indefinite detainment of American citizens, and in fact tell people not to be "fooled" by anyone who says otherwise. In fact, it's very clear that they do think the NDAA.
...
In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.
...
UPDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial
...
There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.
I don't think they're lying. I think they're wrong. There's a difference. And we're talking about op-eds here, not straight news reporting.Usually they have some fact-checking. Anyway, feel free to find some MSM sources that say what you think is true. I mean I don't know what else to say. It seems obvious to me that you and MSTPT are wrong. If you don't want to believe it, you don't have too. Just out of curiosity, what standard of evidence would convince you you're wrong? I mean in science, for example, you have the concept of 'falsifiability'. In order for a scientific theory to be valid (according to Popper) you have to be able to come up with an experiment that would prove what you're saying is false. Is your belief that NDAA allows the indefinite detainment of US citizens falsifiable? If so, how would you falsify it?
Good thing this was a post about the NDAA.Yeah sorry about that. There's lots going on with SOPA but this NDAA argument was just so weird
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics: The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp.Hahaha, is he still saying that crap? Who exactly is left? I guess he'll "Win" by having the republicans be totally insane and nominating a lunatic to run against him. Unless it's mitt romney, in which case Andrew Sullivan as a "a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record" would be fine with being president runs.
(Who am I kidding, MLK around today would look just like The Boondocks imagined it.)Yes, I'm sure he'd be a huge racist ranting about "Niggers"
« Older "The online world of Islamic extremists, like... | What's one thing the major GOP... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Navelgazer at 3:02 PM on January 14 [2 favorites]