EPTSTOP "PROTECT IP (S. 968)/SOPA (HR. 3261)" - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
| ||
|
ExileR
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Big-t
Austria1351 Posts
| ||
|
HaXxorIzed
Australia8434 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:33 crms wrote: If they strike this ammendment there is no hope, what a fucking joke. also you guys it's not mr. sanchez that's good haha, that's ms. sanchez and she sucks. the good guy is mr. polis from colorado!  Yush, my bad. Beyond that it's aggravating to see the lack of context-specific knowledge on the bill and issues at hand ._.; | ||
|
ExileR
United States89 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:48 HaXxorIzed wrote: Yush, my bad. Beyond that it's aggravating to see the lack of context-specific on the bill and issues at hand ._.; Sry this courthouse can't even get their names correctly aligned with the cameras so the viewers can know exactly who is who. Lol, but yeah, he's been awesome so far. | ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
Because if thats true we are having some serious issues here... | ||
|
driftme
United States360 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:50 ExileR wrote: Sry this courthouse can't even get their names correctly aligned with the cameras so the viewers can know exactly who is who. Lol, but yeah, he's been awesome so far. First of all, its not a court. Its the House Judiciary Committee. Second of all, they explained who he was before he started talking, and why he was filling in for Rep Sanchez. | ||
|
ExileR
United States89 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:52 NB wrote: im trying to understand the psychological effect here: Will the people, who are submitting these changes for the bill, vote 'for' if their demands is met? Because if thats true we are having some serious issues here... It seems as though these "changes" are more of "additions" to the bill. It's just slowly going downhill indeed. | ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:47 Xxio wrote: It's painfully obvious how little these people have researched the subject. They are just figuring it out as they go. Sometimes they don't even know how their own amendments relate to existing laws. It's the U.S. Congress, assistants know infinitely more about the actual legislation than the actual legislators. Also, most of the decisions about how someone will vote has been decided behind close doors with lobbyists already. | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
| ||
|
psteeleneg
48 Posts
On December 16 2011 04:01 Kazeyonoma wrote: had to leave for work, first vote was voted down 6-23 or something, then they had an ammendment, did this bill pass? i'm scared... Not yet, but it most likely is about to | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 16 2011 04:01 Kazeyonoma wrote: had to leave for work, first vote was voted down 6-23 or something, then they had an ammendment, did this bill pass? i'm scared... Not yet and even then it won't pass. There's way too much opposition to it and even the lobbyist angle doesn't hold much weight when you consider the sheer size of the corporations against this bill. Apple and Google absolutely dwarf NBC and Viacom and they're heavily invested in preventing SOPA. | ||
|
Galactus52
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
driftme
United States360 Posts
On December 16 2011 04:01 Kazeyonoma wrote: had to leave for work, first vote was voted down 6-23 or something, then they had an ammendment, did this bill pass? i'm scared... Theyre not voting to pass the bill today. Understand, this is the House Judiciary Committee. They are trying to fix up the bill before it goes to the house floor for a general vote. Thats the NEXT step in this becoming US law. Most bills dont get out of the House Judiciary Committee, and if they do its normally after heavy amending and editing. If they do vote on this bill today, and vote in favor, that just means it gets sent to the House floor for a vote. I really don't think that's going to happen today honestly. There are too many people who aren't happy with the current language or who are too uneasy with rushing something like this through, DESPITE all the people that wanna get this passed as soon as possible to help out their big money friends. | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
On December 16 2011 04:16 driftme wrote: Theyre not voting to pass the bill today. Understand, this is the House Judiciary Committee. They are trying to fix up the bill before it goes to the house floor for a general vote. Thats the NEXT step in this becoming US law. Most bills dont get out of the House Judiciary Committee, and if they do its normally after heavy amending and editing. If they do vote on this bill today, and vote in favor, that just means it gets sent to the House floor for a vote. I really don't think that's going to happen today honestly. There are too many people who aren't happy with the current language or who are too uneasy with rushing something like this through, DESPITE all the people that wanna get this passed as soon as possible to help out their big money friends. Thank you for the clarification. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 16 2011 04:16 driftme wrote: Theyre not voting to pass the bill today. Understand, this is the House Judiciary Committee. They are trying to fix up the bill before it goes to the house floor for a general vote. Thats the NEXT step in this becoming US law. Most bills dont get out of the House Judiciary Committee, and if they do its normally after heavy amending and editing. If they do vote on this bill today, and vote in favor, that just means it gets sent to the House floor for a vote. I really don't think that's going to happen today honestly. There are too many people who aren't happy with the current language or who are too uneasy with rushing something like this through, DESPITE all the people that wanna get this passed as soon as possible to help out their big money friends. Yep, and then it has to pass the House and then go to the Senate where it also has to pass. Of course this will take several weeks at the very least, but it'll probably actually take months. If it then passes the Senate, Obama has to sign it. If he vetos it (which seems like what he will do), it has to return to the House where it needs 2/3rd to override and then it has to get the same in the Senate. This is pretty much impossible but let's pretend this all does happen. Now, Obama will direct the solicitor general to build a case against the bill for Supreme Court to hear and they'll judge it as constitutional or not. Note: These justices aren't up for election so lobbyists don't mean anything to them. So basically, SOPA is very likely not going to pass, but it'll take months and months to even get to that point unless the House votes it down sometime in the next few weeks. And of course, in this time while legislators are debating, every corporation whose income is threatened by the bill will invest absurd amounts of money into stopping it. These companies -- Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. -- are all orders of magnitude larger than any of the media conglomerates. Google is worth something like 10 times what Viacom and Comcast are (and this is Comcast as a whole, NBCUniversal is only a small part of that) and Apple alone literally has more money to spend in the blink of an eye than any media conglomerate has in all their assets combined. I'm not too worried. | ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
| ||
|
ManaFortress
Sweden23 Posts
For an example: into nuclear bunkers in Sweden. When will USA:s governing-body realise that their national laws don't apply to the outside world. Also its fun to hear them say that "Internet is one of the usa:s most robust and growing industries", may i ask when the Internet became theirs? The name itself implies that it is a international group of networks, only parts of the network, those that lies in usa can be called theirs, and i dare say, those networks are NOT Internet. If i didn't know better i would say that the senate amongst other goverment-bodies are only looking for some more bribes from networking-related companies such as google, facebook etc. | ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
One person proposes an amendment then another person "refutes" it by reading off a piece of paper that in no way addresses the amendment. ??? | ||
| ||
