CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence' 258
SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as 'turbulence on the way down to landing.' From the article:
"What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable -- is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he's been working with tech companies to make sure they're okay with the bill. And while that's a start, it's no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government. But to then call the protests mere 'turbulence' is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated."
Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people. He's been working with CORPORATIONS to make sure that CORPORATIONS don't have any problem with the LEGISLATION that is put upon THE CITIZENS.
As for the opinion of CITIZENS? -- Who gives a fuck?
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm
The corporations are the primary source of the politicians campaign contributions, contributions that allow the politicians to continue on the gravy train. As such, do you really expect them not to look out for the best interests of said corporations first?
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people.
What's bizarre at this point is how is it possible that so many people don't already understand that. I think it's sufficiently clear that the government is not a tool for the people and that democracy doesn't allow changing that.
Protests have no effect. Votes have no effect. Terrorism has no effect. This is capitalism, only money has an effect. If you don't have large amounts of money, you are a production machine and your opinion matters as much as that of a cow.
The only way of stopping the absolute power of money in capitalism is revolution. Anything else is fruitless crying.
Re: (Score:3)
But crying makes me feel like I'm doing something! That's enough, right? I don't need to actively plan for revolution, right?! The good guys will win out over fascism!!
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, I'll bite. What form of government should be implemented after said revolution? As Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.
Not to mention your logic is circular. Either you have a majority of people willing to support a revolution, and thus could vote in the change they want peaceably, or else you have an armed minority enforcing their will on the majority. How is that better? Because you say so?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprise he didn't say " Let them eat cake"
But then the angry mob will probably be carrying rubber hose and pepper spray instead of pitchforks and torches.
History repeats but it paraphrases.
Re: (Score:2)
They're working on a new freedom, so government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth.
Re:Constituants are greed interest only (Score:2)
The religious and corporate welfare US is a plutocrat republic. ... for US.
IOW: Forget freedom, capitalism, democracy
The religious welfare US will call out their minions to strike fear into the masses and (when needed) kill any patriots.
The corporate welfare US will call out their lawyers and politicians to economically strangle and torture small business and individuals into submission.
When the entitled fools like Rush, Ted, Glenn ... and congressional politicians got your back, you're more than likely ro
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any protesters doing anything but taking up peaceful space.
They won't be noticed by anyone but the press until there is some fire, blood and people defecating openly on Wall st.
Silly hippies, I really think they just attend so they say they have and they can impress that one guy/girl enough to rub special places with them. They're really about as threatening and effective as "Hello Kitty".
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
You kids are cute in your ignorance. My generation never got violent (hell, we were all stoned on reefer) but our protests got the Vietnam war stopped, we got the draft stopped, we got the EPA instituted, we got equal rights for black people, and the only violence done was done to us.
You kids need to put that cocaine down and smoke a joint. As the Salvor hardin said in Asimov's Foundation, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Informative)
"... the only violence done was done to us."
They say smoking pot damages memory, and in your case it seems true.
I guess you don't remember the Weather Underground, or the Black Panthers.
I was there too, and I wasn't stoned. You have a selective memory which is quite inaccurate.
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Everybody needs to go a day without eating.
2. Shut off the internet & the cable tv.
You'll have a new government in place in the morning.
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.
Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
People in the USA have had bizarre extremists and arseholes in government for a long time. See George Wanker Bush and his fellow sociopaths like Condeleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.
It can't get any worse than what those a-holes did which helped
Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Insightful)
G. Dubya Bush is what you get from a democracy that has gone bad.
Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Informative)
Lenin and Washington were from revolutions as well. Hitler was elected into power. Well, Washington was elected into power, but based at least partly on his performance in the revolution.
But Washington was also elected into the Revolution. He did offer his services, but he was also elected by the Continental Congress to lead the Continental Army. Prior to that, his one and only significant military action was in the French and Indian War, and resulted in him surrendering.
Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Insightful)
Washington was also shy of the spotlight. Reluctant leaders are often the best kind.
I think that's probably where democracy got lost. When leaders are nominated by the people who know them, rather than "throwing their name in the hat," you tend to get people who are worthy of the position. When you have people nominating themselves, you get self-aggrandizing assholes. I'm not sure how to make the former work on a large scale that doesn't require campaigning though, which is nothing if not self-aggrandizing, and certainly not in a way that can't be gamed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have democracy, it has doubtless gone bad.
The current world state of affairs is what you get from democracy.
Funny, both Mao and Napoleon are dead and are old enough to be poor examples.
We could use Clinton and Chavez with more effect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really find it hard to imagine a Mao-like revolutionary leader in the US? Sure, they would be very unlikely to be carrying a communist banner, but some aspects of his thinking carry over very well.
"You worked for the government? Then you die."
"But I was just a primary school teacher!"
"Socialist! Indoctrinator! You make the children dependent on the state! Die, scum."
Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Informative)
Clinton and Chavez are better examples of what you get from a revolution? Did you think this through? They were both elected. Chavez staged a failed coup, but was democratically elected afterwards.
Why was this modded up?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton and Chavez are not good examples of leaders which came to power after revolutions because they did not come to power after revolutions. That's all there is to it. Don't get all metaphysical on me, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd think that Obama was a better example of the failures of apparent democracy.
His photo appears in the dictionary when you look for charisma or oratory but he ran on a platform of opposition to most of the things than by the "Other Party" and ended up maintaining very much the same policies in large scale (expanding many of those concerning civil liberties and foreign policy).
You had this option to oppose what Bush did. It said it would do things differently (in very specific terms). Once elected, it didn't.
Democracy doesn't work because we've developed the science of propaganda to a point where the amount of money you have is directly related to the odds of winning an election.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted. What happened with that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted.
six months [wordpress.com]
What happened with that?
Basically, the Affordable Care Act, which the Right has tried to obstruct every step of the way. (Actually, they've tried to obstruct Obama himself and everything associated with him since inauguration, and haven't been shy about their intent to do that.)
Re: (Score:2)
G. Dubya Bush is what you get from a democracy that has gone bad.
Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.
...or Washington or Jefferson. So your point would be...?
Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Revolution means the utter failure of the current system. It's a last resort when you have nothing to lose, because you're taking a HUGE risk that things will turn out 10x worse. You're far better to invest some time and effort into fixing the current system rather than failing to vote or not being involved in politics enough to influence anything. Write those letters. Make your view heard. Use the tools you have *within* the system. Yes, it's screwed up and it's hard to believe we ordinary citizens can make a difference, but where's SOPA now?
I get the feeling that some people would rather sit around on their lazy arse until the government truly is a serious disaster, then they'd be happy to shoot up the place, go home, and then assume it will all be magically better. No, probably not. Did it work that way during any other civil war in the world? Heck no. It's a total crap shoot. Worse, if most people cared so little before the crisis to do something to prevent impending disaster, they certainly aren't going to be able to guarantee things will be any better after the crisis. Revolutions can go bad. Really, really, really BAD.
Pressing the "revolution" button is rather like pressing the big "nuclear" button during the Cold War. You really don't want to go there if it is in any way avoidable.
So, get off your political ass and be involved rather than saying "I'll be involved once they start shooting."
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry, but you must one day shatter your delusion that entrenched fascism can be removed by chipping away at it.
Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)
"you'll get some unstable maniac in charge. . . those willing to kill"
Yea we sure need to avoid letting anyone grab power who might:
A. Execute people, including U.S. citizens, women and children, without a trial, like with UAV's and Hellfire missiles
B. Torture people
C. Lock people up indefinitely without a trail
D. Snatch people all over the world, put black bags over their heads, drug them, and render them to various dictatorships for indefinite detention and torture, and occasionally snatch the wrong people, oops
E. Start long, expensive wars under false pretenses, that kills hundreds of thousands of people and bankrupt the U.S.
F. Engage in massive electronic spying on citizens without a warrant or court oversight
Yep, we definitely don't want any wild eyed revolutionaries grabbing power and doing that shit .
Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Insightful)
Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.
This is true. But the threat of revolution is the only leverage we have left anymore. If you want to avoid a revolution, we need to reform the system. Anyone who is not serious about reform is pro-revolution.
Re:Constitu"E"nts (Score:4, Funny)
We don't need a new government. We need the old government. You know, the one of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? The one that had a constitution that said no torturing would ever be allowed. Where the constitution said the government could never arrest anyone without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge. Where no one could be searched (or wiretapped) without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge. The one where if the government did arrest anyone they could not be held incognito (disappeared) and had to be allowed access to their lawyers, visitors and family?
You know, the one that used to be THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
As for the parents comment that a revolution only puts extremist nutcases in power (what he really meant) :
Yep, Just like, oh, I don't know... THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ??
Its time to save ourselves people. We need a new political party that doesn't follow the examples of any of the existing political parties. Not the republicans, or the democrats, or the libertarians or the greens.
No government is ever perfect. The USA's older government had its problems too, corruption, discrimination and the like, but the current government has completely abandoned even the pretense of following the constitution and is becoming a totalitarian state. And it happened (is happening) under both the Bush and Obama administrations
We need a political party that represents the original intent of the constitution: THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL, AND THAT THIS DEMOCRACY SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THIS EARTH.
The initial goals of this party would be:
Step 1 - pass laws declaring that no company has the same rights as a human
Step 2 - make lobbying by businesses illegal
step 3 - make taking any gifts, no matter how small, even lunch, a felony for any law making representative, local, state, or federal.
step 4 - make it illegal to pass any law that exempts any law making representatives,( local, state, or federal) from laws the rest of the population has to follow.
step 5 - pass a law that says that any laws passed by any law making representative, (local, state, or federal) which increase the benefits (pay, health ins etc..) will not be applied to any of the reps in office at the time the law is passed. It will only be applied to the next rep to take that same office. So if a rep is in office at the time a salary increase is passed, they do not get that increase, Ever. Their pay and benefits are stuck at the level they were at when they entered office, except for any increase that wew passed before they got elected or appointed. Note that says "before elected or appointed" not "before taking office"
Step 6 - pass a law which makes it illegal for anyone who gives or attempts to give a rep a gift or a bribe to ever own or run or manage a business or part of a business again in their lifetime.
Step 7 - make quid pro quo exchanges a felony with a lifetime sentence.
step 8 - form an auditing corp branch of government. These individuals must be willing to have every moment of their life recorded, be well paid, and will have the power to investigate anyone, or anything at anytime for any kind of corruption. They will have the power to ask for and immediately receive any information they ask for. And if they do not receive it, they have the power to bring in any branch of the military they need to enforce their requests.
Step 9 - Remove all judges who cannot separate themselves from any childhood religious indoctrination from the Supreme court. Indeed, any Judge who cannot, should be immediately replaced by an Atheist (satan worshipping, baby eating etc.. ). Note - the vast majority of the US population is Protestant Christian. Why then does the the Supreme Court of all the land consist of 6 catholics and 3 jews? These people were all raised in religious cultures which indoctrinate them to polarized, extremeist, fantasy based views of reality. Examples - "God gave the country to us for our exclusive use! Even though most of us lef
Re: (Score:2)
Then the question is "Is having an unstable maniac in charge a better option that what we currently have available?"
The day draws closer when the answer is, sadly, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
80 years of terrorism is pretty impressive for a country that hasn't even been around that long.
You only had to listen (Score:5, Funny)
Why... why didn't you vote for Ron Paul...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
because his economic policies would result in widespread poverty
Re:You only had to listen (Score:5, Insightful)
Historically, Democratic presidents have closed the gap between rich and poor and overall increased income for the middle class It's too bad they've been becoming more Republican lately.
Re:You only had to listen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You only had to listen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't argue for the parties, but I can look at the records of the presidents over that 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now?
There are differences, but none significant enough to determine which should be burned at the stake first. It looks like we'll just have to supply a bipartisan two stake solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Both clearly want the same thing; more spending, more debt, more rules.
But one promises to vote the way I want on abortion, and that's all that really matters!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...
Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations. The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.
Re:You only had to listen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.
So who do you think is going to take over the various services that are currently provided by the government, which people are not going to just part with? The very corporations whose power you think libertarianism will reduce. Do you really think that those corporations are going to have the best interests of the people in mind when they develop "industry standard" practices for disposing of toxic waste? Do you really think that corporations that do not have to go through the government, and can just
Re: (Score:2)
Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations.
And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Doing away with government altogether because the one you voted for is bad, will just result in a power vacuum that will be filled by a government that you didn't vote for.
Vote for a government that is your friend. That's what you need to be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Power and corruption are intimately linked. A government where 535 politicians can suck $2.2T out of the economy, borrow trillions more and pass sweeping laws (CISPA e.g.) which affect the lives of 330 million people will always be corrupt.
We should be electing libertarian candidates to federal office so that they can shrink the size and scope of this monstrosity in Washington D.C. and restore power to the states and the people where it belongs. Corporate influence will crumble and fragment if power and r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Telcom companies don't care about public opinion (Score:3, Interesting)
Telcom companies don't care about public opinion. They don't have to; they've carved up the country into their own spheres of influence, much like Europe carved up China in the 19th century. If I want an internet connection to my house, I have exactly two choices, who offer suspicously similar pricing schemes. Regulators should be looking into this, but they won't because they're being paid too much money to look the other way.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you're looking for the third article on the left [slashdot.org]
Same Shit, Different Day (Score:5, Insightful)
We have two choices to make it go away.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We have two choices to make it go away.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't work long term.
The only way to get rid of them *is* to stop consuming their products, it will work and it will work faster than most people think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am perfectly willing to stop buying music and movies for a 2 year period if everyone else is willing (actually I never buy any music - I don't listen to it - and I *seldom* buy a movie because so few of them are worth watching more than once. Those that are IMHO, I buy).
I can see nothing negative about the MPAA and RIAA going bankrupt. People will still want music and movies, they will just cut out the leeches^H^H^H middlemen that serve no real purpose
Re: (Score:2)
don't shout down the bill... (Score:3, Interesting)
...shoutdown the politicians that would suggest the government has a right in the first place. Always hold them accountable. (thats the goal)
Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican Rep? (Score:3)
Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R (Score:5, Informative)
Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom. SOPA/PIPA had some bipartison support (and opposition) but it was mostly the Democrates bill. Check out this informative wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]. Both sides are equally full of currupt assholes stop giving one side a free pass just because you think they're ideallistically superior. Idealism doesn't mean shit when you have two wolves (the politcal parties) and a sheep (the people) deciding what's for dinner. They mainly just argue about how they're going to cook us.
Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R (Score:4, Insightful)
Not less guilty - "Differently" guilty.
The Republicans want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as mindless zombie serfs to the Corporate Police state.
The Democrats want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as politically correct zombies who don't want to float to the top (and aggressively push down those who do).
Both sides "hate our freedom" far more than the bogeyman of the week, and will take any steps necessary to strip us of what little sense of individuality we cling to.
Here's an idea (Score:3)
Representative Mike Rogers
Why don't the US instate public representatives in addition to the current corporate representatives?
It seems like such an easy solution to this representation issue you guys are having.
"Turbulence" (Score:4, Insightful)
... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."
Mike Rogers? Or Governor Tarkin? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mike Rogers: "The will of the people will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that democracy has been dissolved permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."
Barack Obama: "But that's impossible! How will we maintain control without the illusion of people having a voice?"
Mike Rogers: "The regional CEO's now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local populations in line. Fear of having their personal information leaked with immunity."
Barack Obama: "Excellent. Everything is proceeding exactly as I have forseen it..."
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing racist about this. Many people who used to support Obama really are disappointed that he turned out to be not much different from George W. Bush.
If you play with fire... (Score:2)
He defined "us" an turbulence? (Score:3)
Well, if that doesn't spell out his perception that he is in a class above the rest of us, nothing else does. Amazing arrogance.
Still, I'd guess we are only at about 8%... probably less... the rest of the world still has no idea what's going on.
Apt metaphor (Score:2)
Enough turbulence, and the whole bill will come crashing down in flames, killing the reelection prospects of all on board.
Turbulance kills! (Score:2)
Hundreds have been killed in crashes due to turbulence.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties in Washington DC agree on is that government should have more power and the people should have fewer freedoms. If these people are entitled to the label "moderate", then we definitely need more extremists. The type that will fight against this relentless assault on our essential liberties.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties
In the US, both major parties are right wing. One is just more extreme than the other. There is exactly one moderate in Congress, Bernie Sanders.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there ARE left wing extremists but not in any national office on the last 30 years. Obama is somewhere between George HW Bush and Clinton.
Open contempt for the people he's supposed to... (Score:2)
serve. Nice. Well, at least he's saying what he honestly believes. It's the same opinion the MPAA has. The major lesson learned from the SOPA debacle by the MPAA according to their lobbyist in chief is that they need to make sure to get tech. companies on-board. No mention of fatally flawed legislation; no mention of stupefying ignorance of how the internet actually works; no mention of the curtailing of the rights of the people. Nope, they just need to buy off the right companies and politicians regardles
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously fail to understand the differences between SOPA and CISPA.
You also fail to understand that the army of supporters you think is behind you just isn't there. SOPA got millions worked up because of the things that distinguish it from SOPA.
Re: (Score:2)
... from CISPA.
Freedom (Score:2)
This is what "freedom" and "democracy" really mean -- nothing to prevent rich companies and their paid lackeys in government from pulling things like this.
If congressmen had mandatory public election financing (no "democracy" for the rich), and government was strong enough to be able to destroy "copyright industry" (no "freedom", "small government" and other dumb ideas that weaken the government and make it dependent on rich people and companies), no one would ever bother conflating security with rent-seeki
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get it. It's obvious that you believe the government is corrupt and controlled by the corporations. Yet you describe "small government" as a dumb idea? Why would you advocate giving more wealth and more power to a government you believe is corrupt and beholden to special interests?
Re: (Score:2)
Weak government serves powerful companies.
Strong government would serve people if for no other reason then out of pointlessness of serving anyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
A strong government serves either itself or the highest bidder.
Governments need to be as strong as they legitimately need to be and no more. That's no easy task.
Call us what you want (Score:2)
We are the oompa-loompas (Score:2)
Or the 99%, or the little people, or whatever. Thus it will be until the oil runs out and the current governments fall. The "good" news is that the price increase/energy return gets so horrible so fast that this could happen before 20 years is out.
Cheers!
What this bill does is expose a technique of .... (Score:3)
...deception. And that techniques is to go to a higher abstract level of a structure to effect a lower level but to remain isolated, protected from that lower level.
The same sort of deceptions the Occupy Wall Street protesters and movement are addressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Rogers.
"...that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA..."
No he's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
But here you are wrong. With SOPA, the public at large managed to find -- finally, I might add -- the supreme spot where to exercise influence over legislation. See, if corporations control politics, it's no use trying to influence politics directly. But if we can influence the politics corporations push for, which we demonstrably can, we can influence politics. Therefore, your point that people don't matter anymore is false.
Re: (Score:2)
This is in fact the sole thing people need to realize.
The citizens still hold all of the power, they just need to focus it at the right targets. If people *actually* went to the companies they buy services from and demanded a change, it would happen.
The government can do whatever the fuck they want as long as the corporations are happy, the corporations don't have that freedom (with some exception regarding bailouts, but those don't work long term)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people are easily distracted and corporations (for all of their focus on short-term gains) are patient. They can enact a hundred mini-SOPAs to slowly move us to the point where we have a full SOPA in place while making sure the people are a) distracted and/or b) not outraged enough by the mini-SOPA to act.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice if it worked that way, but it doesn't. SOPA died because it was legitimately against the business interests of Google, et al. It didn't die because we all asked Google nicely to oppose it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Successful revolutions are successful because elements of the military side with their family members over the government. This applies to anywhere barring outside aid. When Tommy figures out that the 'terrorists' he is expected to shoot are his cousins, sisters, brothers, grandfathers and what not he has to decide where his loyalties are. During a revolution the loyalties for many soldiers will be with family and when this happens en masse the old government is over. Period. Also over would be the old
Re: (Score:2)
It works because US invaders are on their side.
Re:it is turbulance (Score:4)
Let me point out what that would look like: Remember Gabrielle Giffords? A judge and a rep were shot, and a completely innocent kid got killed at the same time. You're talking about that times a thousand?
When Giffords was shot, we, as a nation, decided we didn't like that. (Or was the outpouring of sympathy just a fabrication by corporate-owned media?)
I'm sure your revolution will be completely different than that because your revolution will be based on rational grievances like copyright law, rather than schizo lunacy. And you'll only go after those awful, horrible, oppressors who no one likes. Also, your marksmanship is so much better that little kids won't get killed in your crossfire.
Re: (Score:2)