Hey guys, the government doesn't control newspapers, books or magazines. They don't control TV, radio or movies in any meaningful way.
Hey guys, the government doesn't control newspapers, books or magazines. They don't control TV, radio or movies in any meaningful way.
The Man's been sweating since this:
"....the government doesn't control newspapers, books, or magazines."
NO, it doesn't, but Rupert Murdock, one of THE biggest pushers for SOPA-PIPA does own newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations. In other words, he owns a HUGE chunk of media outlets and to make matters worse, in case you haven't noticed...folks with deep pockets have the government in their control.
Apparently, you have also forgotten that movie studios, those folks who think ticket prices are too LOW, are also backing these bills. I happen to think it's no coincidence that HOLLYWOOD is in the midst of a slump in ticket sales/studio revenues. So what if the studios profit margins aren't what they think they should be because John Q. Public can no longer afford to go to the movies? As has been posted here already, many/MOST? of the corporate backers of SOPA-PIPA are folks who are looking at product lines that in the current economy are OVERpriced, yet instead of lowering prices to affordable levels, they claim (rightly or wrongly?) that the public should stop looking for cheaper alternatives to their products. If HOLLYWOOD, for example, can find hardware or software that keeps me from burning copies of movies that I bought on DVD so that I can't re-sell those movies...why can't it find a way to keep that from happening to movies that are pirated in theaters...or wherever these folks get their "masters" for pirating in other countries?
Do me a favor, go to the nearest book store/magazine rack and look at the publishers. I'll bet you dollars to donuts very few of them are Rupert Murdoch. Hollywood wants more money. Businesses usually do, just the nature of the beast.
Honestly, I think it's the plebs much more than the elites who have us in trouble, which is scary, cause you can get rid of elites relatively easily. Case in point. You don't like Murdoch, tabloids or the mainstream media (I'm assuming based on your post). Most people, if you ask them, will say the same thing and yet, statistically, what do we buy over and over and over again?
Not the Economist (excellent), not Foreign Policy (excellent), not Harpers, not CSPAN, not the Atlantic. So, either we actually do like the main stream media as it is or we are too dumb to move 7 inches down the newsstand. Not sure which scenario I prefer.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: Hey guys, the government doesn't control newspapers, books or magazines. They don't control TV, radio or movies in any meaningful way.
Oh wow! Great news! I guess that's 500 million we can cut from the budget!
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
...Im just sayin...
Ive said it before and I still believe it true:
It wont belong before someone with nothing to lose sees he who took from him as personally responsible for his downfall. Nothing to lose + someone to blame = bad news for the taker-away-er
a few centuries ago, a bunch of folk were pissed off about the way they were governed. When they finally had enough, they decided they were going to do something about it. at what point is that decision made?
...srsly
Taiden wrote: Piracy has also turned into an archival tool. There are countless pieces of software, movies, tv shows, books, music that are otherwise impossible to obtain, even buy. What happens to these items?
One of the very very few pieces of music I have pirated was The Grey Album (Jay-Z's Black Album and The Beatles' White Album mashed up) simply because it was NLA.
Daewooofdeath...
Do you really think you, or anyone else, would see the name of the OWNER on the masthead of every newspaper, book publisher, and magazine...not the COMPANY owned by the owner, but the owner? Do you have any clue(s) as to the chain of ownerships of the major networks? The major movie studios? The major newspaper publishers? Several of them are intertwined with each other as in NBC and Universal movie studio are owned by the same company that owns a major cable company. ABC is owned by the same company that Disney studios are owned by. And no, I don't know, off hand, who owns these 2 different companies.
But what I am saying, the point of my response was that in case you haven't noticed, BIG BUSINESS ALL BUT OWNS GOVERNMENT. Your analogy that Rupert Murdock wouldn't exist or at least would not be as powerful is somewhat ridiculous. Rupurt Murdock started out buying up tabloids AND legitimate newspapers and magazines. He then parlayed that into a mega-empire. Sure, if you or I bought up junkyards in the end it could be said that all we owned was scrap or junk...but anyone wanting to buy scrap or junk would have only us to deal with...and we'd have a monopoly/empire.
BUT, even if none of that was true, WHY is it that folks who are "dyed in the wool" Republicans...folks who say they want/NEED LESS government regulation, ALWAYS run to government when their empires are threatened?
integraguy wrote: WHY is it that folks who are "dyed in the wool" Republicans...folks who say they want/NEED LESS government regulation, ALWAYS run to government when their empires are threatened?
THIS!!!!
seriously, this....
Seriously!
....this....
...srsly
poopshovel wrote:DaewooOfDeath wrote: Hey guys, the government doesn't control newspapers, books or magazines. They don't control TV, radio or movies in any meaningful way.Oh wow! Great news! I guess that's 500 million we can cut from the budget!
Are you referring to NPR?
500 million dollars, btw, would fund the military for about 30 minutes.
4cylndrfury wrote:integraguy wrote: WHY is it that folks who are "dyed in the wool" Republicans...folks who say they want/NEED LESS government regulation, ALWAYS run to government when their empires are threatened?THIS!!!! seriously, this.... Seriously! ....this.... ...srsly
So, how does this make Republicans any worse than dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who do the same? Because they are hypocrites?
Like the rich Democrats who publicly state they support higher taxation but then work the tax code for every possible break so they can pay the minimum?
There are demons on both sides but your posts suggest you are at least delusional.
Seriously................
integraguy wrote: Daewooofdeath... Do you really think you, or anyone else, would see the name of the OWNER on the masthead of every newspaper, book publisher, and magazine...not the COMPANY owned by the owner, but the owner? Do you have any clue(s) as to the chain of ownerships of the major networks? The major movie studios? The major newspaper publishers? Several of them are intertwined with each other as in NBC and Universal movie studio are owned by the same company that owns a major cable company. ABC is owned by the same company that Disney studios are owned by. And no, I don't know, off hand, who owns these 2 different companies. But what I am saying, the point of my response was that in case you haven't noticed, BIG BUSINESS ALL BUT OWNS GOVERNMENT. Your analogy that Rupert Murdock wouldn't exist or at least would not be as powerful is somewhat ridiculous. Rupurt Murdock started out buying up tabloids AND legitimate newspapers and magazines. He then parlayed that into a mega-empire. Sure, if you or I bought up junkyards in the end it could be said that all we owned was scrap or junk...but anyone wanting to buy scrap or junk would have only us to deal with...and we'd have a monopoly/empire. BUT, even if none of that was true, WHY is it that folks who are "dyed in the wool" Republicans...folks who say they want/NEED LESS government regulation, ALWAYS run to government when their empires are threatened?
I spent four years working in the media. There is no conspiracy and there's sure as hell no monopoly. Give me a location and I will find you dozens of small, local media outlets most people ignore in favor of the conglomerates. Media is a business that sells people the things they want to buy. Generally, what they want to buy is celebrity gossip and politics-as-analyzed-by-clowns, but that's on us plebians, not the elites.
As for dyed in the wool republicans, I don't know. Ask one. I suspect money matters more to most people than consistency. Public polling shows that we Americans are consistently hypocritical with our demands. We hate government but love government programs. Why should business be any different?
BTW, most major media companies don't have an "owner," they have hundreds of thousands of owners. If you have a 401k, you are probably one of these evil overlords to a small extent.
oldsaw wrote:4cylndrfury wrote:So, how does this make Republicans any worse than dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who do the same? Because they are hypocrites? Like the rich Democrats who publicly state they support higher taxation but then work the tax code for every possible break so they can pay the minimum? There are demons on both sides but your posts suggest you are at least delusional. Seriously................integraguy wrote: WHY is it that folks who are "dyed in the wool" Republicans...folks who say they want/NEED LESS government regulation, ALWAYS run to government when their empires are threatened?THIS!!!! seriously, this.... Seriously! ....this.... ...srsly
well, no, Im really just referring to the Honorable congressman from Ohio - Mr Steve "El Douche" Chabot - captain SOPA Sponsor himself, who also labels himself the champion of the working class - who has nothing better to do than sponsor this kind of drivel. SOme of his keystones are protecting jobs and the middle class. He "stood up against Obamas EPA regs that could kill good paying jobs in Ohio". Nice! Thanks Stevie! For someone who is standing up against restrictive regulations, sponsoring the death of free speech seems a bit hypocritical doesnt it?
But thanks for taking my post out of context and floundering this thread. Im somewhere in between liberal, conservative, and sane...please dont read my previous post as an opinion on party affiliation - I really have none. Its just funny that if you check http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ - it will show you whos voting what on this issue. A majority of the supporters are republican. I was under the impression the rep.s want less government, more personal freedom....yes? So how does that work then? You cant "Stand up for the protection of American liberty through the restriction of government powers", and then take a crap on my liberties by restricting them....you cant have it both ways.
Youre not serving me when youre serving yourself, Mr. Public Servant. Too many of our elected officials have forgotten what it is we elected them to do.
woah....well, I hadnt checked that link since yesterday afternoon...seems the tides have changed - lots of people jumping onto the other side of r the "yes/no" aisle.
Take that bit out of my previous post then about whos voting what, and just take from it that I couldnt disagree with my congressman more.
Good stuff to be read here:
http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/timeline
4cylndrfury wrote: But thanks for taking my post out of context and floundering this thread. Im somewhere in between liberal, conservative, and sane...please dont read my previous post as an opinion on party affiliation - I really have none. Its just funny that if you check http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ - it will show you whos voting what on this issue. A majority of the supporters are republican. I was under the impression the rep.s want less government, more personal freedom....yes? So how does that work then? You cant "Stand up for the protection of American liberty through the restriction of government powers", and then take a crap on my liberties by restricting them....you cant have it both ways. Youre not serving me when youre serving yourself, Mr. Public Servant. Too many of our elected officials have forgotten what it is we elected them to do.
The problem is that both parties make empty claims about expanding personal liberties; SOPA has bi-partisan support does it not? The link you provided shows that number of "R's" supporting the bill are outnumbered by the "D's"; "R's" opposing the bill outnumber the "D's".
I agree that many elected officials have forgotten/ignored their purpose. I'll also suggest that far many more don't even bother to read, let alone vet, the bills they advocate. Sadly, my state has two Senators that needed reminding their support is not in their best interests.
oldsaw wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: But thanks for taking my post out of context and floundering this thread. Im somewhere in between liberal, conservative, and sane...please dont read my previous post as an opinion on party affiliation - I really have none. Its just funny that if you check http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ - it will show you whos voting what on this issue. A majority of the supporters are republican. I was under the impression the rep.s want less government, more personal freedom....yes? So how does that work then? You cant "Stand up for the protection of American liberty through the restriction of government powers", and then take a crap on my liberties by restricting them....you cant have it both ways. Youre not serving me when youre serving yourself, Mr. Public Servant. Too many of our elected officials have forgotten what it is we elected them to do.The link you provided shows that number of "R's" supporting the bill are outnumbered by the "D's"; "R's" opposing the bill outnumber the "D's".
youre right - please see my post that shortly followed the link...
They have different coaching strategies but the goal of both the R's and D's is almost identical. Getting caught up in which one is raping your liberties harder is a wasted effort.
Getting them to stop is going to require that we have some means to let people know what sneaky E36 M3 they are up to so they can raise holy hell. I don't have a satellite or a TV station but I do have an internet connection.
We have a means. It's called voting.
It's kind of cynical to say this, but in a democracy, we get exactly what we deserve for leadership, which is why I find all the "stop the man" rhetoric pretty naive.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: We have a means. It's called voting.
Voting requires an educated populace and a field of candidates who are not repaying debts to contributors rather than representing the constituents.
Money has no term limit so until you stop the wholesale purchase of candidates voting is the placebo that allows the cancer to keep on killing the host.
In reply to DaewooOfDeath:
I think for voting to be effective, communication needs to be unfettered.
Yes, we had a democracy long before we had the Internet, but with all the information we receive at this point and the ease with which we do so, stifling any particular type of communication over the Internet is akin to saying "Sure you can discuss the issues and what you're leaders are up to. By carrier pigeon. Notes must be written with a quill pen."
This also ignores the case that what needs changing doesn't come up for a vote. Not all that unusual, I think.
DaewooOfDeath wrote: We have a means. It's called voting. It's kind of cynical to say this, but in a democracy, we get exactly what we deserve for leadership, which is why I find all the "stop the man" rhetoric pretty naive.
WRONG
Joe Senator says in his campaigning "I are not a krook - I wan halp you to haz more monies! I can haz ur vote?"
After careful consideration and comparison to the other choices for the office, I determine Joe "can haz mah vote"
Joe is winnar!!! Wooot!!!
Joe then acts in DIRECT OPPOSITION TO the platform on which he campaigned.
Who in this scenario deserves what? Im pretty sure that I deserve the candidate I voted for, not the shallow representation of a public servant he turned out to be. Its pretty naive to think that everyone does what they say they are going to. But I guess thats just shame on me for thinking this guy would do what I elected him to...silly american...
I actually laughed out loud t6oday when I read what criminal Chris Dodd had to say about the protests.
ThePhranc wrote: I actually laughed out loud t6oday when I read what criminal Chris Dodd had to say about the protests.
Linky?
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:ThePhranc wrote: I actually laughed out loud t6oday when I read what criminal Chris Dodd had to say about the protests.Linky?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/18/chris-dodd-sopa-blackout-is-an-abuse-of-power/#disqus_thread
You'll need to log in to post.
