Sometime after people like Ken Lay start doing some hard time for stealing billions, then I'll worry about the occasional pirated song.
I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right -- just that the biggest effort should be make against the biggest criminals, not the easiest targets. For now, the lesson our society seems to be teaching is that if you're going to steal, steal really big and buy off of few political friends with your ill-gotten gains. Not being powerful and not moving in the right social circles is what's punishable.
I don't doubt that. The fact that two Democrats have pushed this is amazing to me. Demicans and Republicrats. It's time for a Government overhaul...fat chance that ever happens.
and
Quote:
I don't doubt that. The fact that two Democrats have pushed this is amazing to me. Demicans and Republicrats. It's time for a Government overhaul...fat chance that ever happens.
It AMAZES you? Really? This the party that has members who favor reinstuting Selective Service, because (and I shit you not) they think it would alleviate the problem of having too many blacks in the military.
It AMAZES you? It only amazes those who so blindly partisan that they cannot accept an interventionist Democrat is, well, interventionist.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your "amzaement". After all, one would assume the party of Hitler would introduce such legislation.
Anyway, the legislation is ridiculous. I agree with that.
I loathe Democrat vs Repulican or Liberal vs Consertive wars. But the warchant of the Democrats for years has been a so call mythical connection to the working class. In latter years it seems this has changed. Now many Politicians are Democrat in name only they desire wealth power and show the same desires that seem to run counter to old Party ideals. Just my observation.
Both parties have really stagnated but you still can't take libertarians seriously either<sigh> Oh well someday the Citizen will get his/her due.
I loathe Democrat vs Repulican or Liberal vs Consertive wars. But the warchant of the Democrats for years has been a so call mythical connection to the working class. In latter years it seems this has changed. Now many Politicians are Democrat in name only they desire wealth power and show the same desires that seem to run counter to old Party ideals. Just my observation.
Both parties have really stagnated but you still can't take libertarians seriously either<sigh> Oh well someday the Citizen will get his/her due.
Agreed. Really. Take Republicans. They used to stand for limited government. WTF happened to that? Once in awhile, the parties sort of switch places on issues. For example, the Republican party actually has a very good historical record on civil rights. The Democrats used to be very pro-business and, prior to WWII....supported foreign interventionism. I think we are in the middle of another shift. The Republicans are becoming "Big Government Conservatives" and the Democrats...well to be honest I'm not sure. It seems they are moving back tot he Left...where they were before Clinton. Something is going to change though, as it usually does for the party that's not in power.
This is why I say Dean will not win in 2004. The Dems have to nominate a more moderate candidate, or they'll get slaughtered. The more I look at the situation (sorry this is off topic!), the more I see Kerry as their guy. He's not particularly charismatic though, and he'll have a lot of trouble in the midwest based on his persona (IMO). In other words, there is no superb candidate.
i think the transference for the republican party (with regards to bigger government) came when the southern democratic (dixiecrats) gradually became republicans. it's the same ideology but they're under the republican banner now, and man, those guys love the pork.
as for dean, jeez he's got such a long time to go, how many shots to the foot can he take? but a President bush / dean debate......that could be pay per view stuff.
i still think this race (as i've said in other threads) will involve the strongest third-party run in the history of modern general elections.
washington has been dirty since they built it. clearly a republic doesn't work. we need a real, pure democracy. (please dont confuse the terms with the modern parties) no representatives, because they don't, and can't, represent their constituents. they need to campaign which costs money, which means special interests have bought them before they get on t.v. if we move to a pure democracy, 'special interests' would be spreading their contributions so thin that they couldn't possibly buy their votes. now, how do we get from here to there?
Apparently, no Republicans have signed on to this, but other Democratic sponsors include "Reps. Howard Berman of California, Adam Schiff of California, Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, Robert Wexler of Florida and Anthony Weiner of New York."
The only thing I can think of is that Democrats are so scared of Republican fundraising post-McCain/Feingold, that they're sucking up to one of their richest constituencies.
I also noticed that the record companies have legally binding subpoena power to obtain information about P2P usage.
[edit]
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Someone is surprised that this comes from the part who ran Al Gore/Joe Lieberman for president/veep in 2000?
If anything, I would trust Republicans more on this issue, though they are all stupid.
I understand the Gore reference, but Lieberman is hardly a friend of Hollywood.
washington has been dirty since they built it. clearly a republic doesn't work. we need a real, pure democracy.
Even with all of the problems of representative democracy, "pure" democracy is no solution. Raw, unrefined public opinion is one of the most stupid, uncaring, and volatile political forces imaginable. The framers of the US Constitution were quite right in fearing the possible "mob mentality" side of democratic forces.
The important concept of individual liberty is in fact a sometimes an anti-democratic principal. Our government is designed not only to protect our freedoms from members of the government, but to protect the individual from the majority, to safeguard the person from the mob.
For all of their flaws, professional politicians have (at least theoretically) a much better opportunity to digest political issues and policy alternatives than the general public, most of whom react with shallow, uninformed, emotional opinions based on the latest headlines and sound bites.
I can think of many reforms that could improve the functioning of representative democracy, but no matter how many reforms it might need I'll take the current mess over the would-be nightmare of a "pure" democracy any day.
Comments
oh, wait.
Originally posted by shetline
Sometime after people like Ken Lay start doing some hard time for stealing billions, then I'll worry about the occasional pirated song.
I'm not saying that two wrongs make a right -- just that the biggest effort should be make against the biggest criminals, not the easiest targets. For now, the lesson our society seems to be teaching is that if you're going to steal, steal really big and buy off of few political friends with your ill-gotten gains. Not being powerful and not moving in the right social circles is what's punishable.
Precisely
Originally posted by hmurchison
I don't doubt that. The fact that two Democrats have pushed this is amazing to me. Demicans and Republicrats. It's time for a Government overhaul...fat chance that ever happens.
and
I don't doubt that. The fact that two Democrats have pushed this is amazing to me. Demicans and Republicrats. It's time for a Government overhaul...fat chance that ever happens.
It AMAZES you? Really? This the party that has members who favor reinstuting Selective Service, because (and I shit you not) they think it would alleviate the problem of having too many blacks in the military.
It AMAZES you? It only amazes those who so blindly partisan that they cannot accept an interventionist Democrat is, well, interventionist.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your "amzaement". After all, one would assume the party of Hitler would introduce such legislation.
Anyway, the legislation is ridiculous. I agree with that.
Both parties have really stagnated but you still can't take libertarians seriously either<sigh> Oh well someday the Citizen will get his/her due.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I loathe Democrat vs Repulican or Liberal vs Consertive wars. But the warchant of the Democrats for years has been a so call mythical connection to the working class. In latter years it seems this has changed. Now many Politicians are Democrat in name only they desire wealth power and show the same desires that seem to run counter to old Party ideals. Just my observation.
Both parties have really stagnated but you still can't take libertarians seriously either<sigh> Oh well someday the Citizen will get his/her due.
Agreed. Really. Take Republicans. They used to stand for limited government. WTF happened to that? Once in awhile, the parties sort of switch places on issues. For example, the Republican party actually has a very good historical record on civil rights. The Democrats used to be very pro-business and, prior to WWII....supported foreign interventionism. I think we are in the middle of another shift. The Republicans are becoming "Big Government Conservatives" and the Democrats...well to be honest I'm not sure. It seems they are moving back tot he Left...where they were before Clinton. Something is going to change though, as it usually does for the party that's not in power.
This is why I say Dean will not win in 2004. The Dems have to nominate a more moderate candidate, or they'll get slaughtered. The more I look at the situation (sorry this is off topic!), the more I see Kerry as their guy. He's not particularly charismatic though, and he'll have a lot of trouble in the midwest based on his persona (IMO). In other words, there is no superb candidate.
as for dean, jeez he's got such a long time to go, how many shots to the foot can he take? but a President bush / dean debate......that could be pay per view stuff.
i still think this race (as i've said in other threads) will involve the strongest third-party run in the history of modern general elections.
Originally posted by hmurchison
It's time for a Government overhaul.
i'm ready. viva la revolución!
washington has been dirty since they built it. clearly a republic doesn't work. we need a real, pure democracy. (please dont confuse the terms with the modern parties) no representatives, because they don't, and can't, represent their constituents. they need to campaign which costs money, which means special interests have bought them before they get on t.v. if we move to a pure democracy, 'special interests' would be spreading their contributions so thin that they couldn't possibly buy their votes. now, how do we get from here to there?
If anything, I would trust Republicans more on this issue, though they are all stupid.
The only thing I can think of is that Democrats are so scared of Republican fundraising post-McCain/Feingold, that they're sucking up to one of their richest constituencies.
I also noticed that the record companies have legally binding subpoena power to obtain information about P2P usage.
[edit]
Originally posted by groverat
Someone is surprised that this comes from the part who ran Al Gore/Joe Lieberman for president/veep in 2000?
If anything, I would trust Republicans more on this issue, though they are all stupid.
I understand the Gore reference, but Lieberman is hardly a friend of Hollywood.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i'm ready. viva la revolución!
washington has been dirty since they built it. clearly a republic doesn't work. we need a real, pure democracy.
Even with all of the problems of representative democracy, "pure" democracy is no solution. Raw, unrefined public opinion is one of the most stupid, uncaring, and volatile political forces imaginable. The framers of the US Constitution were quite right in fearing the possible "mob mentality" side of democratic forces.
The important concept of individual liberty is in fact a sometimes an anti-democratic principal. Our government is designed not only to protect our freedoms from members of the government, but to protect the individual from the majority, to safeguard the person from the mob.
For all of their flaws, professional politicians have (at least theoretically) a much better opportunity to digest political issues and policy alternatives than the general public, most of whom react with shallow, uninformed, emotional opinions based on the latest headlines and sound bites.
I can think of many reforms that could improve the functioning of representative democracy, but no matter how many reforms it might need I'll take the current mess over the would-be nightmare of a "pure" democracy any day.
I understand the Gore reference, but Lieberman is hardly a friend of Hollywood.
It's not so much about being a friend to Hollywood as it is being an enemy to personal rights.