[AlchemistWizard]

This amounts to censorship and you have the likes of Rupert Murdoch support it

How long before a similar law is proposed in Canada? I read something Police Chiefs in Canada want to patrol the web or something.

[Thanos]

rickc wrote:

You oppose SOPA? Good! Every freedom loving person on the planet should oppose SOPA. Do not let your hatred of the right/GOP/TeaParty blind you as to who is really pushing this bullshit legislation forward. The left is in the pocket of the entertainment industry, just as much as the right is in the pocket of the manufacturing/outsourcing/union busting crowd. Lets call a spade a spade here. SOFA was sponsered by people on both sides of the aisle.

But I like it when my hatred and contempt blind me. It makes me like I'm some kind of a tough guy.

I usually put down corporate malfesance and influence-peddling down as a characteristic of the right rather than that of the left. You can fairly bring up the actions of Harry Reid and Chris Dodd on this issue, but the fact remains that the bulk of the work came out of the GOP. When it comes to corporate Hollywood pushing this sort of tyranny the usually leftish politics of the actors and musicians really aren't relevant. The money flow and the ol' Potomac two-step might be something that Dems are as good at as the GOP is. Just by being something that corporations want and that corporations have bought as many politicians as possible so they can get it passed makes it more of a rightish thing than a lefty one. I brought up the TeaParty because they clearly have no interest in policing or regulating corporate activity. That some TeaParty darlings like Marco Rubio were deeply involved with this process should be no surprise to anyone.

[Psudo]

Thanos wrote:

the bulk of the work came out of the GOP.

source wrote:

Which U.S. political party is displaying the most support for SOPA/PIPA?
The answer is both — meaning both Republicans and Democrats are showing overwhelming support for these proposed pieces of legislation.

CNet wrote:

All four Republican presidential candidates today denounced a pair of controversial Hollywood-backed copyright bills

The following list is incomplete, but:

Known Legislative SOPA/PIPA Sponsors/Supporters:
Senate: 13 Republicans (27.7% of all GOP Senators), 22 Democrats (41.5% of all Dem Senators)
House: 19 Republicans (7.9%), 15 Democrats (7.9%)

More Republicans than Democrats have withdrawn their support since then, too. I could make a similar list of opponents, and the party split would be similar. Blaming either party alone is not all that reasonable.

Names in tiny print:
Partial list of Republicans who at some point supported SOPA/PIPA:
Senators:
Marco Rubio (no longer), Orrin Hatch (no longer), Roy Blunt (no longer), Mark Kirk (no longer), Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Lindsey Graham, Johnny Isakson, John McCain, James E. Risch, Lamar Alexander, Saxby Chambliss, Thad Cochran
Representatives:
Lamar Smith, John Boozman, Ben Quayle, Lee Terry, Marsha Blackburn, Mary Bono Mack, Steve Chabot, Elton Gallegly, Bob Goodlatte, Timothy Griffin (no longer), Dennis A. Ross (no longer), Lee Terry (no longer), Mark Amodei, John Carter, Peter T. King, Thomas Marino, Alan Nunnelee, Steve Scalise

Partial list of Democrats who ever supported SOPA/PIPA:
Senators:
Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Kay Hagan, Tim Johnson, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph I. Lieberman, Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Charles E. Schumer, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert P. Casey Jr., Christopher A. Coons, Richard Durbin
Representatives:
Howard Berman, John Conyers, Ted Deutch, Adam Schiff, Bill Owens, Joe Baca, John Barrow, Karen Bass, Judy Chu, Jim Cooper, John Larson, Ben R. Luján, Brad Sherman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Melvin Watt
Other (not counted in statistics):
Former D-Senator, President of MPAA: Christopher Dodd

Thanos wrote:

Just by being something that corporations want and that corporations have bought as many politicians as possible so they can get it passed makes it more of a rightish thing than a lefty one.

Maybe in some vague way, but not in any practical sense like party lines or consensus within far-right ideology. Rand Paul, capitalism in pants, is probably the single most opposed to it of anyone in the Senate.

[Canadaka]

Seems the online protests had some effect, both bills have been delayed

"SOPA and PIPA were dropped by Congress today -- the votes we’ve been scrambling to mobilize against have been cancelled."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2 ... delay.html

[bootlegga]

Interesting article...How SOPA could ruin my life

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/ ... n-my-life/

[Mr_Canada]

rickc wrote:

Hollywood tends to be the Mecca of the far left.

If it makes money, it ain't far left.

Maybe it's that cutesy reform left. Maybe.

But far left?

That's just an insult, to them and us.

[rickc]

Mr_Canada wrote:

rickc wrote:

Hollywood tends to be the Mecca of the far left.

If it makes money, it ain't far left.

Maybe it's that cutesy reform left. Maybe.

But far left?

That's just an insult, to them and us.

I see where you are coming from. The people in Hollywood might not walk the walk, but they definetly talk the talk. You may consider youself on the far left, but how many people do you hold sway over? If you called a press conference to make a point, how many people from the media would show up? If Mike Moore or Barbara Streisand want some press time, they have the ear of millions. There are whole industries built around tinseltown. Who is a better face for the left: some old geyser in Cuba who has not shaved in 40 years, or some young goodlooking moviestar in Hollywood? Castro,Chavez, the fat punk kid in North Korea, they can have all the press conferences they want too. No one gives a rats ass. Let Brad Pitt want to speak and half the worlds population will hear what he has to say.

[Mr_Canada]

rickc wrote:

I see where you are coming from. The people in Hollywood might not walk the walk, but they definetly talk the talk. You may consider youself on the far left, but how many people do you hold sway over? If you called a press conference to make a point, how many people from the media would show up? If Mike Moore or Barbara Streisand want some press time, they have the ear of millions. There are whole industries built around tinseltown. Who is a better face for the left: some old geyser in Cuba who has not shaved in 40 years, or some young goodlooking moviestar in Hollywood? Castro,Chavez, the fat punk kid in North Korea, they can have all the press conferences they want too. No one gives a rats ass. Let Brad Pitt want to speak and half the worlds population will hear what he has to say.

You have to be socially received to be considered far left? And not only socially received, but rich and popular? The antithesis of a far left person would be the Hollywood blowhard.

I'm radical. We're a small and marginalized number and the people I associate myself with have been repressed and silenced in North America since the industrial revolution. We aren't going to get a press conference with anyone but indy media. People like me don't give a shit either, we think Hollywood is disgusting, and the sway they have over people does not affect us. If we heard some Hollywood bigshot supported the Communist Party or something, we would immediately choose to criticize him, rather than pander. It'd be cool, and maybe the sway they would lead would cause some interesting effects in our favour. We'd prefer to do things in a more moral way though, a path that makes us feel less dirty and hypocritical.

Michael Moore? Not a far left person. Cutesy reformist. Said 'socialism' once in his anti-capitalist movie.

For someone on the far left like me, who cares far more about actual integrity then those with money, sway, and hairdressers, the better face would be the Cuban geezer.

Like I said, certainly many people in Hollywood are left-wing. Several movie stars and musicians support various left-wing causes.

Not far left-wing causes though.

[Psudo]

Mr_Canada wrote:

If it makes money, it ain't far left.

By that logic, workers are a terrible choice to operate a communist system. Also, hasn't Hollywood been losing money lately?

"Professional artists" is probably the most accurate description of Hollywood - maybe "commercial artists." But, generally, not a group one associates with conformity to cultural tradition or reverence for the free market. It is a common Hollywood belief that profit-chasing (ie, capitalism) is a distraction from deeper artistic pursuits, and that there is a kind of moral honesty to non-conformism's defiance of our broken and hypocritical status quo. That's leftist reasoning.

[Mr_Canada]

Psudo wrote:

Mr_Canada wrote:

If it makes money, it ain't far left.

By that logic, workers are a terrible choice to operate a communist system. Also, hasn't Hollywood been losing money lately?

"Professional artists" is probably the most accurate description of Hollywood - maybe "commercial artists." But, generally, not a group one associates with conformity to cultural tradition or reverence for the free market. It is a common Hollywood belief that profit-chasing (ie, capitalism) is a distraction from deeper artistic pursuits, and that there is a kind of moral honesty to non-conformism's defiance of our broken and hypocritical status quo. That's leftist reasoning.

When I say 'makes money' I mean making MONEY. More than enough to be a free man. 6-7 figures. Not too many could be a moral communist when they're rolling in the doe. The choices a commie takes because of his ethics would also lead him down a path where they'd willingly reject such sums of money.

'Leftist reasoning'? For them, it's high-class hypocrisy. "Don't mind me stepping on your toes, I'm doing it for the art!"

[ShepherdsDog]

isn't your lack of earning potential the direct result of your lack of ambition?

[Mr_Canada]

For me, yes, because of my ideology. But if luck turned my way, that 'lack of ambition' would see to it that I would still morally deny seemingly good fortune such as riches.

[Psudo]

Mr_Canada wrote:

Not too many could be a moral communist when they're rolling in the doe.

Your argument seems to be "There is no far-left but communism." Is that really the case? If one is for equal rights for animals, gay marriage, minorities, and women, supports no-questions-asked birth control and abortion access and sexual freedom, seeks to protect the environment even at the expense of industry, opposes religious public servants and war and weapons in all forms, and wants significant (but not complete) redistribution of wealth to help the needy (with need defined very inclusively), isn't that "far-left" even though it's merely socialism rather than full communism?

[ShepherdsDog]

Mr_Canada wrote:

For me, yes, because of my ideology. But if luck turned my way, that 'lack of ambition' would see to it that I would still morally deny seemingly good fortune such as riches.

Return your tablet.