Seriously though, at this point there's a strong case for what Leninists (I think?) call "heightening the contradictions". Here, that would mean supporting SOPA.

Perhaps there's no better way to convince people of the need for revolution than for the government to cut off their pirated porn streams.

al franken likes it ... and the campaign donation money that comes with it ... so I like it too. al franken is funny and he is very liberal and I like funny liberals, so whatever al franken does is a-okay to me.

Z

It's also funny that they're stealing it, but don't seem to actually be getting rich off it.

It's called SOPA, so I'm sure it's clean. Well, 99 44/100% Sure. It Floats!

.... you guys can not be serious. The land of prolefeed is sponsering totalitarian madness, and you think it's a good thing.

Here's the problem. It isn't going to stop piracy. They will find a way around it. THEY ALWAYS DO. Also, this will censor most of the websites that people use every day. Granted, losing something like a site with pictures of kittens with cute captions isn't that big of a loss, but sites like Wikipedia, Youtube, and most social networks will also be affected.

Basically, this bill will block the main pipeline of information that almost everyone uses nowdays, bringing the flow of information and knowledge to a weak trickle. Progress can not be made without information.

Why are they doing this? For money. This bill exists only for the purpose of saving money.

Think about it, won't you? Thank you.

-ThePhreakyHelix

P.S. Educate yourselves while you still can about this bill, along with the ramifications of it (both short and long term.)

$100 billion??- the industry itself has claimed losses at $58 billion! (this number is also made up)- i cant compute the math here, but pretty soon the propagandists are gonna point out that every time i click the mouse, i cost them a nickel!?

ThePhreakyHelix - re-read the post carefully, then repeat after me: "Boy, is my face red!"

Hard to argue with that. Especially if they cut off access to your website.

An interesting read.....

"Patent Nonsense
Intellectual property enforces a monopoly over the mind."

here

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/patent-nonsense/

http://icanhascheezburger.com/2012/01/20/funny-pictures-gifs-spaghetti-noodle-cat/

On SOPA, I believe the relatively sane billionaires at Google won this round.

Krugman was never an ally of Obama? Come on that's stupid. He supported Obama on health care reform. Krugman's not liberal? Really?

And your blog post on Hitchens was really stupid too.

Krugman named his blog "Conscience of a liberal." You must have a crazy definition of what a liberal is.

And about Hitchens, bin Laden and the Palestians. What if bin Laden said we did because of world hunger? So what? Yeah hunger's a problem.

Or I'll put in terms maybe you can understand. Say it's right after WWII when Hitler invaded Poland, France, Russia, etc. and gassed trainloads of Jews among others. Someone points out "well the allies were pretty harsh about World War I reparations." It's sort of besides the point even if true. Knuckleheads like you give the left a bad name.

Mirror, mirror
On the wall
Who's the sanest
Of us all
Is he with us
Or one of them
How does he dress
Who are his friends
And I
I
I'm so confused
Which
Which
Which way to choose---Steppenwolf
Ah, the politics of division, its in OUR blood, heart and soul.
Ain't that America
You and me, Babe---John Melloncamp

Wow, comparing bin laden to Hitler is fucking genius. Wish I had thought of that before. Except, hmm, bin Laden wasn't exactly at the head of a state apparatus bringing its industry to bear through sheer intimidation of the general public. Instead, he was the nominal head of an organization that promoted asymmetric warfare, that relied on a decentralized network of volunteers who felt sympathetic to his cause. So, what he said mattered a lot, because it determined how many people found his ideology worth supporting. This, and this alone, is the determinant of "al Qaeda"'s strength. Thus, when al Qaeda says that things like the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, American presence in Saudi Arabia, American starvation and later bombing of Iraq, Arab dictatorships' cooperation with America are all things they are fighting against, we should consider whether those things are worth stopping. I'd say they're worth giving up just on their own merits, regardless of whether they'd also have the effect of reducing support for al Qaeda.

saurabh: ALL excellent activities to drop which would, no doubt, lead to a better, safer, happier, more productive nation and, yea, world. None the less, WE ARE AMERICA, there are TRADITIONS to concider. They can tell it to the Drone.

"I'd say they're worth giving up just on their own merits, regardless of whether they'd also have the effect of reducing support for al Qaeda."

Yeah just like World War I reparations were unfair to Germany. Actually it was America's fault. Germany owed the UK and France excess war reparations throughout the twenties until the Great Depression and the UK and France owed the US war time debts. America wouldn't negotiate down its debts and so the UK and France wouldn't let Germany get out from under its debts.

The Nazis took power in Germany partly via their ideology and propaganda. It was thanks to people who said things like "yeah Hitler is right the war reparations were unfair. They're trying to keep Germany down." Like what Schwartz is saying about bin Laden.

Bin Laden screwed the Palestinians, got Bush re-elected, got Iraq and Afghanistan invaded and got himself assassinated. Good work. Well done.