Rep. Mike Rogers Dismisses CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeter On the Internet" 222
gale the simple writes "Mike Rodgers made a minor splash Tuesday when he decided to liken CISPA opponents to 14-year-old basement dwellers. The EFF, naturally, picked up on this generalization and asked everyone to let the representative know that it is not just the 14-year-olds that care about privacy."
50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Who do you trust more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?
At least we know teenagers in their basements aren't taking money from special corporate intrests trying to fuck us all over.
Look at it the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
My first thought was...after sitting down and discussing it with his 14 year old nephew, it must all have gone over Rodgers' head, and he didn't learn anything. Hey, next time let the kid write the legislation, leave it to the experts.
Re:Hey... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the mouth of babes, as they say. Something tells me that fourteen year old tweeters such as yourself know infinitely more about how the web works than this Rogers character. Not as if he cares though, right?
And editors... Fuck it, if you haven't improved after so many mistakes there's just no point in bothering to point them out any more.
Re:Who do you trust more? (Score:5, Insightful)
the basement teen in almost all instances.
The teen in the basement knows more about real life than the Congressional idiot that will only take meeting with people who will contribute to his/her campaign.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Usually, when a politician backs crap like this (and especially when they say really ignorant things like this guy did), a file all about them shows up at their office filled with data found via legal access.
I just have to assume that there is some heavy lobbying pressure on this guy from corporate America - corp America is increasingly dependent on Big Data and they are against anything - anything at all - that will limit their precious data. Through in the whole "national security - stopping the next marathon bomber or the next school shooting" and you have a recipe for more intrusions on our privacy.
It doesn't help that there are millions of US citizens voluntarily giving up their privacy via Facebook.
Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, 14 year olds tend not to be remotely aware of the evils of bills like CISPA. In my experience it's the best and brightest segment of society that's united against this nonsense. On the other hand, 14 year olds are quite familiar with answering criticism with a false ad hominem attack.
Time for a Super PAC (Score:5, Insightful)
14 year olds care about privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
14 year olds care about privacy? Really? REALLY? Hello, there's a website we'd like to introduce you to Mr. Congresscritter. It's called Facebook. You should find out what happens there sometime.
Is it just me or has the rate of public officials mouthing off like children increased? Don't these people have any dignity anymore? (That last is a rhetorical question...)
Bullshit all Around (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Politicians introduce legislation against common people's interests.
2. Initial concerns over privacy/abuse of power are voiced.
3. Companies of all sorts voice support, and how much it is needed.
4. Apparently clueless politicians make statements minimizing critics as somehow insignificant.
5. Huge outrage swells up from 'the people'
6. Politicians and Companies back-pedal
7. Last clueless politician stays the course.
8. Bill dies.
9. ???
10. Rince and Repeat
Obama has threatened to veto it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure the President of the USA is not a 14 year old tweeter.
Re:Time for a Super PAC (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't, but chops to you for heading towards a "managed" situation in politics.
It's a weird line they are following - on one hand if they bomb the masses with enough ads, they get their votes. In another way, they have got to be deathly afraid if the masses actually start coordinating votes. I could go on for 3,000 words but I'll stay short in this post. The basic point is, for the first time ever, Social Media can Coordinate votes to counter the advantage politicians have had of close access in the Capitol for a hundred years. Right now there's no platform for it. But so help us when there is, this grand Pres cycle will be a WHOLE NEW game.
Don't play their game! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
Statements like yours are why Hamilton was so against the Bill of Rights from the beginning. In no way is the purpose of the Constitution to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It's sad to see that he was right.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
From Federalist Papers #84:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just sad. I can remember when the Republicans really were the party of small government (small in budget, small in intrusiveness, except regarding sex where they lost all sanity), and the Democrats really were the anti-censorship, anti-racism party, and the mainstream of both parties was proud of America. WTF happened in 20 years?
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is attacking your rights. Just your privacy. I know people don't like to hear it but their is no Constitutional right to privacy. What privacy you do have is by statute.
Keep this in mind - in a democracy, anything that is not subject to a law to say otherwise:
1. it is allowed for the citizens
2. it is forbidden for the state/government.
So spare me with the "Constitution doesn't grant you this right" or cease pretending US is a democracy.
(I'll be counting the replies recycling the "by Constitution, US is a republic, not a democracy". I do hope I'll have none to count).
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)