Wikipedia 24 hour blackout planned - protest over SOPA and PIPA

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Alan Browne, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jan 16, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan Browne <> wrote: >
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-w
    ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

    Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation of
    the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution,
    on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country under martial law?
    Land of the Free la-de-da.
     
    paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink, Jan 16, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Browne

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 01-16-2012 18:37, paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink wrote:
    > Alan Browne<> wrote:>
    > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-w
    > ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
    >
    > Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation of
    > the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution,
    > on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country under martial law?
    > Land of the Free la-de-da.



    All of us. But NDAA (I assume that's the evil you're referring to)
    doesn't violate the entire Bill of Rights, just a portion of it.
    Hopefully the Supreme Court has enough gumption to call their bluff.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    People would have more leisure time if it weren't
    for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
    — Peg Bracken
     
    Wes Groleau, Jan 17, 2012
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <jf2n44$gl0$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > On 01-16-2012 18:37, paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink wrote:
    > > Alan Browne<> wrote:>
    > > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-
    > > on-w ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
    > >
    > > Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation
    > > of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the
    > > Constitution, on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country
    > > under martial law? Land of the Free la-de-da.

    >
    >
    > All of us. But NDAA (I assume that's the evil you're referring to)
    > doesn't violate the entire Bill of Rights, just a portion of it.
    > Hopefully the Supreme Court has enough gumption to call their bluff.


    Ironic that as a liberal I am hoping for the most activist conservative
    SCOTUS of my lifetime to contradict the most conservative Congress
    (abetted by one of the weakest presidents) of my lifetime...

    --
    "The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in
    order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And
    then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
    result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as
    if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"
    - Dalai Lama
     
    Tim McNamara, Jan 17, 2012
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Salmon Egg Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesd
    > ay-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business


    If feasible, it would be even better to have a continual blackout on
    Wikipedia for inquiries from .gov sites.

    --

    Sam

    Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
    Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
     
    Salmon Egg, Jan 17, 2012
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 01-16-2012 22:19, Tim McNamara wrote:
    > Ironic that as a liberal I am hoping for the most activist conservative
    > SCOTUS of my lifetime to contradict the most conservative Congress
    > (abetted by one of the weakest presidents) of my lifetime...


    I thought I leaned toward conservative. But I don't see conservatism in
    SOPA or PIPA or NDAA, I see stupidity and outright evil.

    And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants judges
    called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not unpopular
    opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public
    opinion instead of the Constitution.

    And Newt tells me Mitt Romney and John Kerry are the same because they
    both speak French. Glad he's keeping me informed of what's important,
    so I don't need Limbaugh any more.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    People would have more leisure time if it weren't
    for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
    — Peg Bracken
     
    Wes Groleau, Jan 17, 2012
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <jf2vqm$m1o$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    >
    > And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants judges
    > called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not unpopular
    > opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public
    > opinion instead of the Constitution.
    >

    No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
    at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
    pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
    through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 17, 2012
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Davoud Guest

    Kurt Ullman:
    > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
    > at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
    > pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
    > through, the justices who were "getting in my way".


    Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests of
    the country in mind. Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething
    hatred that lives to this day among so-called conservatives (the
    opposite of "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as
    we have seen all too often, regressives further no interests except
    those of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
    jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me laugh!
    That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From where the
    regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be thankful for
    centrists like Obama who represent the majority of Americans, who
    themselves stand squarely in the center.

    --
    I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
    you will say in your entire life.

    usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
     
    Davoud, Jan 17, 2012
    #8
  9. In article <>,
    Kurt Ullman <> wrote:

    > In article <jf2vqm$m1o$>,
    > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants judges
    > > called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not unpopular
    > > opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public
    > > opinion instead of the Constitution.
    > >

    > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
    > at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
    > pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
    > through, the justices who were "getting in my way".


    The twenty-four hour blackout protest is a futile, poorly conceived
    gesture that is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating.
    Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia leadership are employing a flawed
    strategy against an opponent that frequently employs the same flawed
    strategy against others. To wit: this government punishes the sitting
    regimes in other states, whose actions it opposes, by imposing trade
    sanctions and embargoes against them. Sadly, and predictably, the trade
    sanctions effect no change in the regimes. They serve only to deprive
    and harm the population of that state.

    Similarly, Wikipedia's twenty-four hour blackout will influence the 535
    immoral demagogues' voting decision on SOPA / PIPA by nil, but will
    deprive their own patrons of their service. This is tantamount to
    punishing their customers for the actions of a third party. I contend
    that the large majority of people who will encounter the message on the
    Wikipedia site during the twenty-four hour period will scratch their
    head, wonder "what does that mean", not investigate SOPA / PIPA further,
    and then continue with their uninformed lives. There is no gain for
    Wikipedia in their actions. It's truly a pedantic act. How immature.
    How pitiful.

    Wikipedia could have, and should have, taken the moral high ground by
    putting some skin in the game. They could have requested to testify in
    front of congress. They could have written position papers and then
    published them on their site prominently. They could have requested
    interviews with print and broadcast journalism. They could have
    requested interviews with the more potent blogosphere. For people who
    are busy, they could have created a quick link on their site in which
    visitors could enter their email address, to which Wikipedia could have
    sent their position papers, thus allowing busy patrons to gain
    visibility and knowledge of the issue at their leisure. Instead, they
    have chosen a method that constitutes the first refuge of the
    incompetent: mindlessness and abdication of responsibility. Sitting on
    the sidelines, complaining, whining, doing nothing of significance or
    positive consequence to address the issue. Only hurting those whom they
    claim to serve. Sounds like government.

    Wikipedia, you failed on this cause.

    --


    Kurt Todoroff

    Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
    Consent, not coercion.
     
    Kurt R. Todoroff, Jan 17, 2012
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <170120120832286247%>, Davoud <>
    wrote:

    > Kurt Ullman:
    > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
    > > at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but
    > > pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or
    > > through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

    >
    > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests of
    > the country in mind.


    No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and
    did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in
    his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he
    could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let
    him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it.

    Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething
    > hatred that lives to this day among so-called conservatives (the
    > opposite of "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as
    > we have seen all too often, regressives further no interests except
    > those of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
    > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me laugh!
    > That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From where the
    > regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be thankful for
    > centrists like Obama who represent the majority of Americans, who
    > themselves stand squarely in the center.


    Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me take
    a napkin and clean that spittle off your face) and you conveniently
    ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP breaking the
    filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights Act of LBJ's
    would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the GOP caucus at
    the time voted for the Act than did the Dems.
    I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in
    the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the
    personal leve.

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 17, 2012
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <>,
    Kurt Ullman <> wrote:

    > In article <jf2vqm$m1o$>,
    > Wes Groleau <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary? Wants
    > > judges called on the carpet for unpopular opinions? It's not
    > > unpopular opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect
    > > prevailing public opinion instead of the Constitution.
    > >

    > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or
    > at least one that disagrees with them.


    ROTFLMAO! What a superb summation!

    --
    "The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in
    order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And
    then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
    result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as
    if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"
    - Dalai Lama
     
    Tim McNamara, Jan 17, 2012
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <>,
    Kurt Ullman <> wrote:

    > In article <170120120832286247%>, Davoud <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Kurt Ullman:
    > > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent
    > > > judiciary.. or at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is
    > > > probably the worst, but pretty much every president has worked
    > > > toward getting around, or through, the justices who were "getting
    > > > in my way".

    > >
    > > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests
    > > of the country in mind.

    >
    > No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and
    > did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in
    > his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he
    > could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway)
    > let him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it.


    And failed.

    <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-
    presidential/>

    > > Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething hatred that lives to
    > > this day among so-called conservatives (the opposite of
    > > "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as we have
    > > seen all too often, regressives further no interests except those
    > > of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
    > > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me
    > > laugh! That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From
    > > where the regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be
    > > thankful for centrists like Obama who represent the majority of
    > > Americans, who themselves stand squarely in the center.

    >
    > Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me
    > take a napkin and clean that spittle off your face) and you
    > conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP
    > breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights
    > Act of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the
    > GOP caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems.


    Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and
    the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support- IIRC
    all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in
    improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans. Those of
    us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the
    60s can see the benefits. Now that agency and those laws are under
    strident attack from the right wing.

    IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of
    LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.

    > I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in
    > the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the
    > personal leve.


    And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our
    progress as a nation. It has been the creative tension between those
    political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.
    Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational
    philosophy any more.

    --
    "The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in
    order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And
    then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
    result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as
    if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"
    - Dalai Lama
     
    Tim McNamara, Jan 17, 2012
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim McNamara <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Kurt Ullman <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <170120120832286247%>, Davoud <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > > Kurt Ullman:
    > > > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent
    > > > > judiciary.. or at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is
    > > > > probably the worst, but pretty much every president has worked
    > > > > toward getting around, or through, the justices who were "getting
    > > > > in my way".
    > > >
    > > > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests
    > > > of the country in mind.

    > >
    > > No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and
    > > did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in
    > > his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he
    > > could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway)
    > > let him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it.

    >
    > And failed.
    >
    > <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-
    > presidential/>
    >
    > > > Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething hatred that lives to
    > > > this day among so-called conservatives (the opposite of
    > > > "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as we have
    > > > seen all too often, regressives further no interests except those
    > > > of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
    > > > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me
    > > > laugh! That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From
    > > > where the regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be
    > > > thankful for centrists like Obama who represent the majority of
    > > > Americans, who themselves stand squarely in the center.

    > >
    > > Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me
    > > take a napkin and clean that spittle off your face) and you
    > > conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP
    > > breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights
    > > Act of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the
    > > GOP caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems.

    >
    > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and
    > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support- IIRC
    > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in
    > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans. Those of
    > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the
    > 60s can see the benefits. Now that agency and those laws are under
    > strident attack from the right wing.
    >
    > IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of
    > LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
    >
    > > I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in
    > > the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the
    > > personal leve.

    >
    > And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our
    > progress as a nation. It has been the creative tension between those
    > political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.
    > Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational
    > philosophy any more.


    Could you citizens of a strange foreign country kindly keep your navel
    gazing off this international NG please.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Jan 17, 2012
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    Tim McNamara <> wrote:

    > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and
    > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support- IIRC
    > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in
    > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans. Those of
    > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the
    > 60s can see the benefits.


    All the factories have shut down, part of the reason.

    --

    I been warped by the rain, driven by the snow
    I'm drunk and dirty, don't you know
    But I'm still
    Willin Wilbur
     
    Wilbur Eleven, Jan 17, 2012
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim McNamara <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Kurt Ullman <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <170120120832286247%>, Davoud <>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Kurt Ullman:
    > > > > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent
    > > > > > judiciary.. or at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is
    > > > > > probably the worst, but pretty much every president has worked
    > > > > > toward getting around, or through, the justices who were "getting
    > > > > > in my way".
    > > > >
    > > > > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests
    > > > > of the country in mind.
    > > >
    > > > No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and
    > > > did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in
    > > > his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he
    > > > could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway)
    > > > let him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it.

    > >
    > > And failed.
    > >
    > > <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-
    > > presidential/>
    > >
    > > > > Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething hatred that lives to
    > > > > this day among so-called conservatives (the opposite of
    > > > > "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as we have
    > > > > seen all too often, regressives further no interests except those
    > > > > of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
    > > > > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me
    > > > > laugh! That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From
    > > > > where the regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be
    > > > > thankful for centrists like Obama who represent the majority of
    > > > > Americans, who themselves stand squarely in the center.
    > > >
    > > > Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me
    > > > take a napkin and clean that spittle off your face) and you
    > > > conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP
    > > > breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights
    > > > Act of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the
    > > > GOP caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems.

    > >
    > > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and
    > > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support- IIRC
    > > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in
    > > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans. Those of
    > > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the
    > > 60s can see the benefits. Now that agency and those laws are under
    > > strident attack from the right wing.
    > >
    > > IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of
    > > LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
    > >
    > > > I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in
    > > > the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the
    > > > personal leve.

    > >
    > > And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our
    > > progress as a nation. It has been the creative tension between those
    > > political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.
    > > Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational
    > > philosophy any more.

    >
    > Could you citizens of a strange foreign country kindly keep your navel
    > gazing off this international NG please.


    Could you citizens of an even stranger foreign country kindly learn how
    to use killfiles??
    Probably not on either count. (g).

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 17, 2012
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    Kurt Ullman Guest

    In article <jf44rq$mlc$>,
    Wilbur Eleven <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Tim McNamara <> wrote:
    >
    > > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and
    > > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support- IIRC
    > > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in
    > > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans. Those of
    > > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the
    > > 60s can see the benefits.

    >
    > All the factories have shut down, part of the reason.


    In the US, the output of our manufacturing facilities is actually bigger
    (even in constant dollars) than it was in the 60s and 70s. It is just
    that the great increases in productivity have takes the jobs away. We
    have lost considerably more (higher paying) jobs to robots than the
    Chinese.
    Of course, this change also increases the differences in air
    quality.

    --
    People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
    until patients started presenting with sexually
    acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
     
    Kurt Ullman, Jan 17, 2012
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    sbt Guest

    In article <>, Tim
    McNamara <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    >
    > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and
    > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support- IIRC
    > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in
    > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans. Those of
    > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the
    > 60s can see the benefits. Now that agency and those laws are under
    > strident attack from the right wing.
    >
    > IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of
    > LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
    >
    > And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our
    > progress as a nation. It has been the creative tension between those
    > political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.
    > Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational
    > philosophy any more.


    One thought that might be considered here is that, EPA, Clean Air Act,
    Clean Water Act, the Labor Movement, and many other causes in sway
    today have grown to where they are no longer what they started out to
    be. In many cases (not all, but somewhere between "many" and "most")
    they spawned bureaucracies and bureaucracies have a strong focus on
    self-perpetuation and empire-building...like the scorpion in the fable,
    "it's just their nature."

    As a result, extremists on both sides push their agendas, regardless of
    balance. Right now, most of the press covers pressure to hem in and
    beat back. In the nascence, the opposite was true. Balance should be
    the goal, but the pendulum swings away.

    Also, little remembered is that pre-Nixon, the bulk of restrictive
    conservatism lay in the Democratic Party. It was the elections of 1968
    and 1972 that moved so many staunchly regressive Southern politicians
    from the Dems to the GOP.

    --
    Spenser
     
    sbt, Jan 17, 2012
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    JF Mezei Guest

    Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
    >
    > Wikipedia could have, and should have, taken the moral high ground by
    > putting some skin in the game. They could have requested to testify in
    > front of congress.


    http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html

    No meetings scheduled for SOPA, but there is background negotiation from
    the MAFIAA (akaL lobbying) to get it moving again.

    With no meetings scheduled, there will be no testimony.
     
    JF Mezei, Jan 17, 2012
    #18
  19. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2012-01-17 08:44 , Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:

    > Wikipedia, you failed on this cause.


    The only way they failed was in making it English site _worldwide_. It
    should have been limited to the USA and not affect the rest of us.

    While I also use the French Wikipedia, the articles are often not as
    complete.

    --
    "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
    Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).
     
    Alan Browne, Jan 17, 2012
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    Kurt Ullman <> wrote:

    > So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he could pack
    > it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let him do
    > whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it.


    ReaganBushBush managed to do the same thing, but over time instead of all
    at once.

    > and you conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP
    > breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights Act
    > of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the GOP
    > caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems.


    Those certain Democrats, AKA Dixiecrats, and/or their ideological heirs
    have been Republicans for decades. Most of the Republicans of the 1960s,
    including Goldwater and Nixon, would be considered liberals by today's GOP.

    --
    Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
    People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Jan 17, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Maynard Keynes

    P4P800 slows down hour by hour after boot

    John Maynard Keynes, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Asus
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    306
    Ayoub
    Feb 20, 2004
  2. Reaperman
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    264
    Reaperman
    Mar 27, 2006
  3. Beemer Biker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    319
    Yousuf Khan
    Dec 12, 2005
  4. Wes Groleau

    Babies and bathwater: Stop SOPA

    Wes Groleau, Dec 17, 2011, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    358
    Fred Moore
    Dec 19, 2011
  5. Alan Browne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    186
    Alan Browne
    Jan 19, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page