White House will not support SOPA, PIPA

Trakar said:
The Whigs were still the second major mainstream party in the 1956 elections, though it was actually the deaths of both Clay and Webster between the nominating convention and the 1952 election that ripped the party apart and led to its eventual dissolution into the major sects which had come together in 1836 to face the Democratic party after the collapse of the Federalist Party. (The modern Democratic party was formed to replace what was originally called the Jeffersonian Democratic Republican party, often shortened to "Republican" which was formed around the remains of the Anti-Federalist Party). So the modern Republican party traces its roots to the strong and large national government, conservationalist progressive activists of our nation's first century or so, and the modern Democratic party traces its roots to the first party called "Republican" and was all about State's Rights and both social and fiscal conservatism,...and people wonder why I see so little difference in the faces of our nation's political coin.

I would like to see a truely Progressive party arise, regardless of which coalition it arises from, the last party that came close to true progressivism, called itself the Progressive party, but I'm more interested in actions than labels.
Click to expand...

*sigh*. Current political parties bear little representation to their origins.
 
409101_3049632680401_1250740937_33227536_1303055384_n.jpg
 
So, what's going on with this thing? When's the vote? How's it looking?
 
uke2se said:
So, what's going on with this thing? When's the vote? How's it looking?
Click to expand...

The congress critters seem to be going against it. I posted this in the wiki blackout thread. Apparently getting swarmed by constituents can have an effect.

My only congressman who's for it is Sen. Durbin.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
And those people actually cost nothing. Because in fact they were not going to be customers under any circumstances and in any case never enjoy anything except a tiny bit of the material they download.

Make it easy and inexpensive to watch online, and piracy will go WAY down.

For example; Porn. I can go to Gamelink, to name one, and buy recent brand-name porn on PPV or for download. But to do that, I will be paying something not too far removed from the cost of buying the DVD. On Gamelink, it's 60 minutes for $8.95. If in fact you could rent a film for $2.99, like iTunes offers for mainstream films, you would have far more people plunking down their geld. Enough more that you would absolutely increase revenue and your expenses would not rise proportionately, so more profit.
Click to expand...

You pay for porn? :rolleyes:;)
 
KoihimeNakamura said:
*sigh*. Current political parties bear little representation to their origins.
Click to expand...

Historically, and within the last 5 decades that I've been paying much attention to such, they have swapped and traded policies and stances on most issues (often from one election cycle to the next) repeatedly, and then supported opposition stances or rejected their own party plank issues with such regularity, that I as far as I'm concerned, pander rhetoric aside, there is no real difference between the two.
 
BenBurch said:
We should resurrect the Bull Moose Party. And I'm serious; That is the progressive agenda to aim for. Even today, once you take out the few pure anachronisms, the Bull Moose platform that Roosevelt ran on looks very good.
Click to expand...

Fully agreed!

Teddy had a few issues, he was a product of the society he grew up in, but his embracing of Progressivism and the promise it still holds is yet encouraging. Unfortunately, too many liberals (generally socially conservative authoritarians addicted to a do as I say, not as I do, big government stick) try to hide their true colors under its label, so most really don't understand what true progressivism is about.

I don't completely agree with the Wiki explanation, but it is much closer than most modern political definitions that basically and improperly equate liberalism and Progressive thought.

I like Sirota's distinction though it falls far short of a full explanation - http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14766709

This piece isn't too bad either, discussing both the good and the bad parts of early progressive politicians and goals:

http://www.examiner.com/progressive...ferences-between-progressivism-and-liberalism

...However, the scope of progressive imaginations was larger than just this. Progressives looked beyond the world they lived in to advocate for a new economic order, something different from either capitalism or communism. In bold, confident terms, Progressivism argued that an activist government should exercise economic sovereignty and engage in economic planning, and regulate, nationalize, or abolish the great industrial corporations of the day. Their vision was a way of life in which cooperation replaced competition as the guiding impulse of economic life, in which human values would be privileged above market values, and in which sweeping inequality would be replaced by a rough equality of wealth, a fair share in national prosperity, something they called "an American standard of living." Their rationale for this vision was not grounded in traditional liberal concerns about the individual or in Marxist ideology that the worker should own the means of production.

Rather, Progressives were animated by a faith in collective action, and a belief that the flaws in society created by humans could be fixed by humans. In a very real sense, the Progressives were the heirs of a rich tradition of American republicanism, a philosophy that saw the sovereign people as the only legitimate source of political and economic power, that believed in the defense of the common-wealth against private privilege, and that demanded the great concentrations of wealth be redistributed to create a "rough equality" among equal citizens, lest inequalities of wealth become inequalities of political power. Ultimately, the vision put forward was that economic sovereignty - the right to decide how each one of us lives our lives in the workplace, in the marketplace, and in the public square - must be taken from the hands of monopolistic corporations and restored to popular government. As Theodore Roosevelt put it:

"The Constitution guarantees protections to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have themselves called into being."
Click to expand...
...
Click to expand...

I still think there is a growing and important place for a truely Progressive party in the US system.

[/soapbox]
 
Wildy said:
And this attempt was called?
Click to expand...

Napster for one

Rhapsody for another

The thing is, people wont pay for what they can get for free

The entire freetard world loves to say how "the current model is broken" but there is no model that can succeed against free
 
Steam? GOG?

Yeah, those services are not hugely successful or anything...
 
pipelineaudio said:
Napster for one

Rhapsody for another

The thing is, people wont pay for what they can get for free

The entire freetard world loves to say how "the current model is broken" but there is no model that can succeed against free
Click to expand...

There's a big component of convenience and good pricing. If a service can offer a good product for a good price then even prolific pirates will start paying for things. Pirates aren't all just free for free's sake. I've seen people pirate just because they don't like the company's policies - if the big dogs start trying to court the pirating community instead of there futile attempt to cripple it, I wouldn't be surprised if their profits started to climb.

I use to be a prolific game pirate but with steam and a job (not to mention steam's account siphoning sales) the last time I pirated a game was when I wanted to try one but there wasn't a demo for it (it was a pretty boring game, I found).
 
Last edited:
pipelineaudio said:
Napster for one

Rhapsody for another

The thing is, people wont pay for what they can get for free

The entire freetard world loves to say how "the current model is broken" but there is no model that can succeed against free
Click to expand...

Rhapsody, napster - two failed services out of? You have iTunes,Amazon,Hulu,Netflix,... The only really international service are iTunes (barely) and Vuze (nothing from big content yet AFAIK; uses bittorent)

And WTF is that second part? Generalise much? Ignoring independent studies?
(Also insulting is not good idea too)

One: If somebody is "freetard" - never would buy- then he never ever was customer no matter what. If he is prevented at all cost from downloading, then he simply ignores you until he can get you. Forget such group, you never can get them as for them it's principle.

Second, many would pay, but can't as there is no offer or offer is extremely bad value. Then other means come into play...

Morrigan said:
Steam? GOG?

Yeah, those services are not hugely successful or anything...
Click to expand...

Heh, even in my country and are we known for being downloaders.

BTW: Downloading movies and music is permitted here...

Anyway, may be eliminatoion of drm,various unskippable antipiracy screeds and trailers.
 
Last edited:
Klimax said:
Second, many would pay, but can't as there is no offer or offer is extremely bad value. Then other means come into play...
Click to expand...

Garden variety rationalization...shown to be a lie of course because people will go to some lengths to steal it

BTW show me a business model that can recoup on itunes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom