7 ms·

they may be able to keep the people from knowing about it until it happens, but with all this outrage it seems unlikely they'll be able to keep it quiet after t

by cwe 15y ago

they may be able to keep the people from knowing about it until it happens, but with all this outrage it seems unlikely they'll be able to keep it quiet after the fact. Then they'll have to answer to this behavior come election time.

16s 15y ago
They don't care. They honor those who buy the lobster dinners and give them 30 dollar cigars. When you vote them out, they'll have several six or seven figure cushy job offers to pick from. --- From wikipedia: In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist,"[22][23] [senator Chris] Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).[24] The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011.[25]
- bad_user 15y ago
  The individuals may end up with six/seven figure cushy jobs, but the party may still suffer long-term consequences. When you're in politics, money is only good for one thing: buying votes. However, if a force stronger than free t-shirts and pens makes itself noticed, like mass-media reminding people how they got screwed, then interesting things can happen. I think the main issue here with these people is that the Internet is not controlled so tightly as traditional media. And we are just starting to see the social effects.
  - tonio09 15y ago
    The internet might not be as tightly controlled but think of the Great Firewall of China. In addition, it's an excellent tool for surveillance. People periodically realize that they are being screwed over, yet most of the time after the initial outrage nothing happens. There may be some scandals but wait 6 months and it's all forgotten.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    the party may still suffer long-term consequences Two party system, long term is only long enough for the other side to screw up, so 4 or 8 years tops.
    - EGreg 15y ago
      That's what sucks. Everyone you pick from (except Ron Paul probably) doesn't really represent you. I think Obama had really good intentions, but then he ran up against reality aka Congress.
      - nekojima 15y ago
        I can not imagine anyway in which Ron Paul could ever "represent" me.
        cgag 15y ago
        I don't think he represents me, but I think he'd actually represent the values of the people who vote for him, which I think is more than I can say about any other candidates.
        ars 15y ago
        No he wouldn't. He would represent his own values which differ greatly from the vast majority of citizens. And he would run into the exact same reality as Obama.
        EGreg 15y ago
        I just think that when Americans' main hope to reform their system is a 76 year old guy running for president, there is a bigger problem. Granted, this guy is an ideologically pure multi term congressman loved by many people. But if Obama got gray hair from 4 years, I can only imagine what the congress is gonna do to this fiery fellow...
    - bad_user 15y ago
roc 15y ago
That strikes me as optimistic. The most likely move is to slip this authority into a defense/anti-terror bill. It'd be a fairly straightforward exercise in legalese to create wording that grants the government the right to blacklist domains/addresses under the auspices of fighting terrorism. And while the wording will suggest terrorism, it will be sub-defined to cover illegal enterprises in the aggregate and that, as they say, is the ballgame. And when that version of the law gets attacked, the defense is the same straightforward jingoism and propaganda that has successfully fended off attacks on the recent, more-egregious intrusions into our liberty. If people can't see past some flag-waving to get fired up about the executive having the explicit authority to bug your internet connection, search your car, attach a GPS tracker or even unilaterally declare you no longer deserving of your constitutional rights and bundle you off to secret prison, they're not going to see past it to get fired up about what the government might do to their websites.

by cwe 15y ago

16s 15y ago

They don't care. They honor those who buy the lobster dinners and give them 30 dollar cigars. When you vote them out, they'll have several six or seven figure cushy job offers to pick from. --- From wikipedia: In February 2011, despite "repeatedly and categorically insisting that he would not work as a lobbyist,"[22][23] [senator Chris] Dodd was identified by The New York Times as the likely replacement for Dan Glickman as chairman and chief lobbyist for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).[24] The hiring was officially announced on March 1, 2011.[25]

bad_user 15y ago
The individuals may end up with six/seven figure cushy jobs, but the party may still suffer long-term consequences. When you're in politics, money is only good for one thing: buying votes. However, if a force stronger than free t-shirts and pens makes itself noticed, like mass-media reminding people how they got screwed, then interesting things can happen. I think the main issue here with these people is that the Internet is not controlled so tightly as traditional media. And we are just starting to see the social effects.
- tonio09 15y ago
  The internet might not be as tightly controlled but think of the Great Firewall of China. In addition, it's an excellent tool for surveillance. People periodically realize that they are being screwed over, yet most of the time after the initial outrage nothing happens. There may be some scandals but wait 6 months and it's all forgotten.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  the party may still suffer long-term consequences Two party system, long term is only long enough for the other side to screw up, so 4 or 8 years tops.
  - EGreg 15y ago
    That's what sucks. Everyone you pick from (except Ron Paul probably) doesn't really represent you. I think Obama had really good intentions, but then he ran up against reality aka Congress.
    - nekojima 15y ago
      I can not imagine anyway in which Ron Paul could ever "represent" me.
      - cgag 15y ago
        I don't think he represents me, but I think he'd actually represent the values of the people who vote for him, which I think is more than I can say about any other candidates.
        ars 15y ago
        No he wouldn't. He would represent his own values which differ greatly from the vast majority of citizens. And he would run into the exact same reality as Obama.
        EGreg 15y ago
        I just think that when Americans' main hope to reform their system is a 76 year old guy running for president, there is a bigger problem. Granted, this guy is an ideologically pure multi term congressman loved by many people. But if Obama got gray hair from 4 years, I can only imagine what the congress is gonna do to this fiery fellow...
  - bad_user 15y ago

roc 15y ago

That strikes me as optimistic. The most likely move is to slip this authority into a defense/anti-terror bill. It'd be a fairly straightforward exercise in legalese to create wording that grants the government the right to blacklist domains/addresses under the auspices of fighting terrorism. And while the wording will suggest terrorism, it will be sub-defined to cover illegal enterprises in the aggregate and that, as they say, is the ballgame. And when that version of the law gets attacked, the defense is the same straightforward jingoism and propaganda that has successfully fended off attacks on the recent, more-egregious intrusions into our liberty. If people can't see past some flag-waving to get fired up about the executive having the explicit authority to bug your internet connection, search your car, attach a GPS tracker or even unilaterally declare you no longer deserving of your constitutional rights and bundle you off to secret prison, they're not going to see past it to get fired up about what the government might do to their websites.