Brandon Strader Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Oh don't get me started. I went to dinner tonight with my family trying to talk to them about the importance of SOPA and Protect IP never making their way into our laws, and I ended up finding out that they all became Republicans behind my back and apparently I'm a horrible human being for disliking all the GOP candidates. As a result, I'm fairly certain they're all going to call in support of SOPA.halp me internet my family are dumb How could you not like Ron Paul? What kind of liberal monster are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tensei Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 How could you not like Ron Paul? What kind of liberal monster are you? Politics typically aren't about whom you 'like' the most, but about which party's election policies are the most beneficial for yourself. Then again, this does explain a lot about US politics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion5182 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Since we've crossed the line into politics this is the average of where people SHOULD be on Right/Left Right: Smaller Government 'Talk Softly Carry a Big Stick' (Defense stance) Fiscal Responsibility. Left Larger Government Defense position is debatable. (I wont provoke the mayhem) Communism based economics. What we mostly agree on. (supposedly) Bill of Rights. 1-10 amendments on constitution. SOPA is not a good thing and would DEFINITELY break the first amendment. There is the potential for it breaking other amendments as well to be honest. SOPA i believe is the last gasp of Hollywood to stick to old dying ideals and not convert to the modern age. I would have thought iTunes, Hulu, Netflix and others would show these people the way of the modern age. Its the same conversion newspapers refuse to make and its pissing me off. (Newspapers are still viable if someone's willing to revolutionize the way they work. I have an idea of how to do it but i don't have the cash to even consider trying.) On Demand Content has been popularized by Hollywood all the way back to Betamax. This is the end phase of the On-Demand Content model, that was popularlized by Hollywood. In the form of VHS videos and the backing of DVD and Blu-Ray. If This fails it will FORCE Hollywood to finally get its act together on the new age of this content. I have been working this from the local side more than the internet side. Hollywood is trying to force not only bad movies down our throat they're trying to make us pay out the ass for them. Its time they learn they're not as valuable as they think they are. Video games far surpass 95% of the movies that have come out over the past 10 years. (The ones you'd put ahead are on everyone's list.) And tickets at the theatres are costing more and more. Enough is enough. I've had a ban on going to the theater for five years. I was considering breaking that for the avengers. I wont now. That movie i was REALLY looking forward to seeing. This crap has put me off it. Take a stand against hollywood. Stop going to the theaters. Maybe they'll finally get the message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteo Xavier Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 SOPA i believe is the last gasp of Hollywood to stick to old dying ideals and not convert to the modern age. I like this part in particular. Do you think when this fails (the backlash will be so huge that I believe, even in my cynicism, that failure and precedent thereof will be guaranteed eventually) that it might be the last straw before Hollywood finally gets it? Or will they keep trying until they grind themselves into the ground? I wonder why Hollywood gets the label of being "highly liberal" when they make weird, "highly conservative" decisions like these. These terms in truth are useless and are only used for common vernacular and social meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monobrow Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 How could you not like Ron Paul? What kind of liberal monster are you? There are a lot of reasons not to like Ron Paul. One of them being trying to introduce into law that life begins from "conception", and leaving it to the states to decide who gets to marry whom. (Yeah that went well w/ Prop 8 and homosexuals), as well as all that gold standard stuff, isolationist views, repealing Roe vs. Wade, and saying he wouldn't have voted yes on Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a matter of principle (because there is no grey area or compromise in this world, everything is black and white right?) as well as pro-deregulation, which got us into the Wall Street mess in first place. Yeah, no, and he's supposed to be the best Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion5182 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I like this part in particular. Do you think when this fails (the backlash will be so huge that I believe, even in my cynicism, that failure and precedent thereof will be guaranteed eventually) that it might be the last straw before Hollywood finally gets it? Or will they keep trying until they grind themselves into the ground?I wonder why Hollywood gets the label of being "highly liberal" when they make weird, "highly conservative" decisions like these. These terms in truth are useless and are only used for common vernacular and social meaning. Depends on what form the backlash takes and if there actually is one. I would hope there is but i'm not seeing this remarked on in anywhere near enough places. And i dont know if the right people are in the right positions for them to start actually using what they HAVE to make it work. Hollywood is responsible for practically destroying netflix with raising its rates. I was a former netflix customer (might try it again just to see their lineup) who got disgusted at 2 rate hikes (big ones) in under a year's time. This isnt act however 'conservative' by any stretch of the imagination. Its a money grab. Pure plain and simple. They're trying to hang on to the ability to squeeze sites like netflix and hulu. This is a violation of the first amendment and i pray and work for it's failure. Hollywood is labeled highly liberal for a multitude of reasons (Backing the democratic party for a very long time) Until rather recently actors had to fear being labled conservative for fear of being shut out of jobs (This did happen and still to an extent i believe does) Actors are highly political and in many cases activists in their own right. They tend to have views that lean towards the left side of the isle. I have NO problem with that label to be honest. But they preach a bit too much and dont always Do. Back on the original question the backlash depends on what the public will do. They post record profits but if you take into consideration the insane price of going to the movies the fact of the matter is they've probably been LOSING people slowly but surely. They dont need to lose slowly. People like us need to not go to avengers opening weekend. We need to not show up at ALL. Monobrow: Ron Paul is a Libretarian not a Republican. He's a deeper conservative and while i do not agree with several points i DO however agree with Roe V Wade for one reason and one reason only. THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE LAW! Roe V Wade was the opening of the floodgates to judges making law in this country the congress of the time did not call them on it did not impeach them for it and now judges all over the place are taking far too large a step. Seperation of powers is supposed to work like this Executive branch enforces the law and suggests the law Legistlative branch Crafts the law Judicial Branch settles issues within the law Abortion was an issue that should have been solved on a state by state basis or taken to the national congressional level. It should not have been a decision by nine judges who can not be removed from bench without MASSIVE cause. I do not like Ron Paul i do not think he is the right for the oval office. I do however like several of his positions on Fiscal REsponsiblity something we don't have enough of. And several of his other positions at least have merit and can be properly debated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Liberals like him because he's socially liberal, that's about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnarock Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Just a thought... could we maybe discuss how much we hate SOPA instead of how much we hate (insert political leaning here)? SOPA is, after all, the topic, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion5182 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Just a thought... could we maybe discuss how much we hate SOPA instead of how much we hate (insert political leaning here)? SOPA is, after all, the topic, right? Sure. I was addressing larger issues at hand since they were brought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlouge82 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE LAW! Roe V Wade was the opening of the floodgates to judges making law in this country the congress of the time did not call them on it did not impeach them for it and now judges all over the place are taking far too large a step. Sorry, I don't want to get off topic here, either, but I just have to correct this massive error. [OFF TOPIC] Roe v. Wade was correctly decided under the Constitution, and it did not open the floodgates to judicial "law-making." 1803's Marbury v. Madison did. Marbury established the principle of judicial review (i.e. courts ruling that laws are unconstitutional). All Roe v. Wade did was rule that abortion restrictions are unconstitutional. It didn't "make new laws" per se. It set a restriction on Congress's and the individual states' power under the Constitution. If the Supreme Court couldn't do that, the judicial branch would not have any power in the whole "checks and balances" equation that's supposed to keep the three branches of government in check. If you disagree with a Court ruling, that's your right as an American to do so, but the Supreme Court is the final legal authority on what's constitutional. [/OFF TOPIC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickomoo Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Since we've crossed the line into politics this is the average of where people SHOULD be on Right/LeftRight: Smaller Government 'Talk Softly Carry a Big Stick' (Defense stance) Fiscal Responsibility. Left Larger Government Defense position is debatable. (I wont provoke the mayhem) Communism based economics. . I never really understood how the right could be for smaller government, they want to enact legislation that will determine who can marry, what women can do, who can be in the military, ect... I know economic liberalism is half the smaller government rhetoric but come on, don't straddle the fence by getting the government involved in other stuff. /offtopicrant sorry! I like this part in particular. Do you think when this fails (the backlash will be so huge that I believe, even in my cynicism, that failure and precedent thereof will be guaranteed eventually) that it might be the last straw before Hollywood finally gets it? Or will they keep trying until they grind themselves into the ground?I wonder why Hollywood gets the label of being "highly liberal" when they make weird, "highly conservative" decisions like these. These terms in truth are useless and are only used for common vernacular and social meaning. This isn't really conservative legislation per se, like someone pointed out "money grabbing" or I would argue, they see it as... money 'protecting.' Whenever huge sums of money are involved you sure as hell can bet that people are going to act more "conservative." After all, think if you made so much money and what not and worked hard for it, wouldn't you generally support legislation designed to help you keep as much of it as you possibly can. Or make even more? From what I understand the liberal stance comes from the actors, who are activist. But what many people don't understand is that in entertainment (be it sports or movies, whatever) it's not the performers who matter. It's their superiors who are representative of the industry, and I'd argue that those people are by no means "liberal" well perhaps economically but yeah. They make so much money they have no reason to be "liberal." They support legislation that protects money. Legislation that can be seen as conservative. 'Conservative' interests in many cases just means in the interest of money. And if this fails, Hollywood and the media have no reason to stop. They'll just bribe another congress and start all over again. Only, well imo, public outcry could totally halt this. But man SOPA seems to be pretty hidden. None of my friends are talking about it. Seriously this is the first time I've actually discussed it with anyone. It's like someone's muffling the discussion to the public... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Redifer Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Since we've crossed the line into politics this is the average of where people SHOULD be on Right/LeftRight: Smaller Government 'Talk Softly Carry a Big Stick' (Defense stance) Fiscal Responsibility. Left Larger Government Defense position is debatable. (I wont provoke the mayhem) Communism based economics. What we mostly agree on. (supposedly) Bill of Rights. 1-10 amendments on constitution. What I find kind of funny about the whole left/right things is that the right wants smaller government but at the same time they REALLY want to control people's lives (abortion, gay marriage, etc). Lefties want total freedom but at the same time want government to take care of us all. Granted, those are the extremes, but that's usually what I see when I look at politics. I also sometimes find it backwards how some preach we must cherish all life (re: abortion) but it's OK to execute prisoners. Personally, I'm pro-death in all circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteo Xavier Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 *kefkalaugh.wav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinewav Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I'm just going to leave this right here, so we can get back to talking about SOPA. It has nothing to do with political parties. Money doesn't have a party. Republicans and Democrats alike are going to vote in favor of the people funding them... and the people funding them are people who want to make more money. Result? Bills like this get lots of votes because the fountain of cash funding our government wants them to do well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KieranCarden Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 And I'm going to leave this right here. Hypocrisy much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC2151 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Politics typically aren't about whom you 'like' the most, but about which party's election policies are the most beneficial for yourself. U.S. politics hasn't had meaningful "party" politics in at least three or so generations. It's not so much parties in these crazy post-WWII days, as it is individual personalities. I can get behind that man! Then again, this was probably a natural development due to the fact that unlike Europe, America never had a strong socialist/leftist movement to oppose the traditional liberal democratic parties. So what do you do when your parties essentially agree on the same style of governance? I'll leave that to you to figure out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monobrow Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Sorry, I don't want to get off topic here, either, but I just have to correct this massive error.[OFF TOPIC] Roe v. Wade was correctly decided under the Constitution, and it did not open the floodgates to judicial "law-making." 1803's Marbury v. Madison did. Marbury established the principle of judicial review (i.e. courts ruling that laws are unconstitutional). All Roe v. Wade did was rule that abortion restrictions are unconstitutional. It didn't "make new laws" per se. It set a restriction on Congress's and the individual states' power under the Constitution. If the Supreme Court couldn't do that, the judicial branch would not have any power in the whole "checks and balances" equation that's supposed to keep the three branches of government in check. If you disagree with a Court ruling, that's your right as an American to do so, but the Supreme Court is the final legal authority on what's constitutional. [/OFF TOPIC] Quoted for truth. Not enough people realize this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 In somewhat related news, the RIAA was just caught downloading the entire Dexter series, and at $150000 a episode, that's 9 million in fines. Can SOPA or PIPA be used to shut down the RIAA somehow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadofsky Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Video games far surpass 95% of the movies that have come out over the past 10 years. (The ones you'd put ahead are on everyone's list.) The quality of narrative/acting in games for me at least, is debatable at best. Though I do concede that they've made progress in the past few years. I was considering breaking that for the avengers. I wont now. That movie i was REALLY looking forward to seeing. This crap has put me off it. Take a stand against hollywood. Stop going to the theaters. Maybe they'll finally get the message. If you don't go see the movie post SOPA approval, they'll blame it all on piracy!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tensei Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The quality of narrative/acting in games for me at least, is debatable at best. Though I do concede that they've made progress in the past few years. This. Videogames are still a relatively young medium and we have yet to see a Citizen Kane equivalent. Games like Mass Effect get lauded for their universe building and characters, but you have to realize that in movie form it would only qualify as a mediocre B-movie at best. Hell, even Planescape Torment (which I consider the pinnacle in videogame storytelling) would only make for a decent, not groundbreaking movie/mini series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 What I don't like is that SOPA and PIPA could destroy independent review sites. "Hey boss, there's this review about our new game, and it uses a few minutes of footage without our express permission." "It is a good review, or a bad review?" "They gave our game an 5 out of 10." "Let's use SOPA and get it shut down. Any other issues?" "Another site is up to an hour of footage and multiple screenshots, and they didn't get permission either." "What was the score from them?" "They gave it a 9 out 10." "Hmmm, I think we can let that one slide for now..." I can see it happening. Bad reviews get blocked because they didn't "get" permission. Good reviews are left alone, because they did "get" permission. The worst part is, even after it happens several times, eventually it would become the norm and then no one fights it anymore. Gamers and internet users have short attention spans when it comes to politics, and we don't exactly strive to keep the fight going for long. After a year, everyone will be so accustomed to it, we'll mock sites that get blocked for being obvious idiots. Seriously, we suck at this sort of thing. I'm hoping that Obama guy vetoes this and other bills like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tensei Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Gaming journalism already is pretty much like that though. "They gave our game a 5 out of 10" "Okay don't send them any review copies of our future games anymore." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brushfire Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 And I'm going to leave this right here.Hypocrisy much? In somewhat related news, the RIAA was just caught downloading the entire Dexter series, and at $150000 a episode, that's 9 million in fines.Can SOPA or PIPA be used to shut down the RIAA somehow? Same Guy. YUK YUK YUK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickomoo Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Hey look it's ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KieranCarden Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Same Guy. YUK YUK YUK! Har Har xD I figured my post would be overlooked anyway, at least someone else saw the article as well. Hey look it's ... Why are they saying SOPA passed? I got an e-mail from DemandProgress today stating: Wow -- That was close: After threatening to hold a vote this week, the House Judiciary Committee just cancelled tomorrow's hearing on SOPA! WASHINGTON POST: The House Judiciary Committee confirmed Tuesday that it will delay continuing debate on the Stop Online Piracy Act until after Congress returns from its winter recess. Plus some other stuff and a bunch of links regarding donations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.