Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dark RevenantX on March 27, 2010, 11:20:36 am
-
No thread on this yet, so yeah.
ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), to sum up, was a secretly-drafted agreement/treaty/thing between Japan, US, and the EU. It's goal is to criminalize copyright infringement and counterfeiting and allow for police searches, investigations, and follow-ups to copyright-infringement acts that have or MAY have been committed. Computer scans and other searches, for example, would be made on any kind of suspicion of pirating.
ACTA was leaked, however, and is causing all hell to break loose. I know that the Obama administration plans to use it as an executive agreement, putting as much of ACTA in place as possible without changing US law - and thus not requiring congressional approval. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act basically allows most, if not all, of the ACTA policies simply because the former is so vague and is currently a law.
If you want to see the document for yourself, I uploaded the leaked version to my site: ACTA Leaked PDF (http://comclan.co.cc/xsera/ACTA.pdf)
Discussion? Despair/anger? The apocalypse is coming? Big Brother is watching you?
-
Well crap.
-
there has been a thread on this, pretty sure of that.
And how exactly do you know that the Obama administration will do this thing?
-edit-
yeah, even has the same name:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=61955.0
-
This is all hell breaking loose? First I've heard of it, even counting that old thread.
-
ACTA was leaked, however, and is causing all hell to break loose. I know that the Obama administration plans to use it as an executive agreement, putting as much of ACTA in place as possible without changing US law - and thus not requiring congressional approval. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act basically allows most, if not all, of the ACTA policies simply because the former is so vague and is currently a law.
this is why i voted republican in the last election
-
So Obama is planning to circumvent the constitutional requirement that all treaties be ratified by the Senate by implementing many of the ACTA provisions through executive order?
Also, from what you are saying DarkRevenant many of the provisions of ACTA would seem to violate 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and nothing in the United States overrides the U.S. Constitution.
-
ACTA was leaked, however, and is causing all hell to break loose. I know that the Obama administration plans to use it as an executive agreement, putting as much of ACTA in place as possible without changing US law - and thus not requiring congressional approval. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act basically allows most, if not all, of the ACTA policies simply because the former is so vague and is currently a law.
this is why i voted republican in the last election
Don't tell me that the party that brought you people the joys of the DMCA would have been against ACTA.
-
When was the DMCA signed?
-
Okay, after some research, it turns out that the DMCA was signed in 98, under Clinton.
However, I didn't see Bush making any effort to remove that POS.
-
You don't see Obama and his Democratic Congress making any efforts to repeal the Patriot Act, do you?
-
one sec
-
You don't see Obama and his Democratic Congress making any efforts to repeal the Patriot Act, do you?
Obama and most Democrats only pretend to be liberal. They're mostly moderates. Succckkkk.
-
one sec
I hope nobody saw the un-edited version of this post because I punked myself hardcore.
-
You don't see Obama and his Democratic Congress making any efforts to repeal the Patriot Act, do you?
Obama and most Democrats only pretend to be liberal. They're mostly moderates. Succckkkk.
Zack, you do realize that pre-FDR, someone who called himself a liberal would have been in favor of free markets and maximum individual liberty? You can see vestiges of this whenever economists talk about liberal market policies.
-
So Obama is planning to circumvent the constitutional requirement that all treaties be ratified by the Senate by implementing many of the ACTA provisions through executive order?
Also, from what you are saying DarkRevenant many of the provisions of ACTA would seem to violate 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and nothing in the United States overrides the U.S. Constitution.
Hmmm... Well, apart from my sentiments which were appropriate (but the context in which they were expressed were not) in the last thread on this, I have two solutions:
(a.) Use as much open-source material as possible.
(b.) Let's revolt! It's what Thomas Jefferson would have done!
...WWTJD?
:p
-
You don't see Obama and his Democratic Congress making any efforts to repeal the Patriot Act, do you?
Obama and most Democrats only pretend to be liberal. They're mostly moderates. Succckkkk.
Zack, you do realize that pre-FDR, someone who called himself a liberal would have been in favor of free markets and maximum individual liberty? You can see vestiges of this whenever economists talk about liberal market policies.
And now conservatives want liberty for corporations and liberals want liberty for individuals. So what?
-
"Generalities" in politics and parties is a fail system...
-
there has been a thread on this, pretty sure of that.
And how exactly do you know that the Obama administration will do this thing?
-edit-
yeah, even has the same name:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=61955.0
It was only leaked recently. And that thread was a year and a day old when I posted this one.
Also, I may have overstated "all hell breaking loose", but this is something that would cause a more unanimous backlash than the healthcare bill. A lot of states would have something to say about it, and thus would sue the government, bringing it to the supreme court, at which point it would be found to violate, as someone said earlier, your fourth amendment rights. If they really tried hard, they could probably find some 1st amendment violations among some others, as well.
-
If it was only leaked recently, how the hell do we have a thread with the same name about the same thing that says the same thing that is over a year old?
I don't buy it.
(Didn't we have another one of these pop up back in October or something too? I think I remember another of these, but after the linked thread.)
-
WARNING: HEALTH CARE DERAILMENT IMMINENT!!!
Zack, Obamacare with its mandate on individuals to purchase government-approved health insurance plans or face a fine, as well as increased regulation on small-business owners about them providing health insurance they may not be able to afford is definitely not pro-liberty, especially since small-business owners are the ones who create prosperity and wealth through their entrepreneurship.
-
If it was only leaked recently, how the hell do we have a thread with the same name about the same thing that says the same thing that is over a year old?
I don't buy it.
(Didn't we have another one of these pop up back in October or something too? I think I remember another of these, but after the linked thread.)
Yeah, people knew about the document and had a general idea of what it entailed. The actual document itself, however, has been leaked recently.
-
WARNING: HEALTH CARE DERAILMENT IMMINENT!!!
Zack, Obamacare with its mandate on individuals to purchase government-approved health insurance plans or face a fine, as well as increased regulation on small-business owners about them providing health insurance they may not be able to afford is definitely not pro-liberty, especially since small-business owners are the ones who create prosperity and wealth through their entrepreneurship.
You know, to be honest, I'm a pretty big fan of free-market stuff, but what you just posted sounds like regurgitated talking points to me, not actual cogent analysis. That last clause in particular is just a collection of buzzwords and ideology masquerading as fact.
Modern 'conservatives' want more government regulation of our lives by regulating social behaviors. Modern 'liberals' want more government regulation of our lives by regulating economic behaviors. Both parties ask for expanded government power, and neither should pretend otherwise.
Anyway, you're neglecting an important issue when it comes to health care: there are negative as well as positive liberties, i.e. freedom from fear, want, et cetera. Guaranteed health care, for instance, can be seen as a guarantee of an important freedom.
My ultimate reason for supporting universal health care is this: the rest of the developed world would not switch to the US system. In the US, we are divided on whether it's good. If you have two restaurants, and in one restaurant 50% of the clientele thinks it's great, and in the other 95% thinks it's great, you go to restaurant 2.
-
nothing in the United States overrides the U.S. Constitution
:wakka::wakka::wakka:
-
And now conservatives want liberty for corporations and liberals want collectivism for individuals. So what?
fixt
-
Oh, are we using collectivism now that it's understood that everyone *****ing about socialism and communism don't know what the words mean?
-
Apparently. Though. I give a less than average chance of people being able to define collectivism, given the utter inability for many noisemakers to understand socialism and communism. Good luck with that.
Nothing new here except random assignation of evil to a sitting President.
Oh wait, thats not new.
-
nothing in the United States overrides the politicians' corruption.
Fix't.
-
this is a little bigger than just the US of A.
:sigh:
I don't like the sound of this thing, but feel better in the unlikeliness of it ever being enforced.
-
/me pats MR_T3D on the back.
Fear not, dear friend. As the so-called "brave new world" approaches, you will bear witness to both good and evil, peace and strife, and sh*t and fans. So long as you can differentiate between the two mediums, feces will not cover and soil everything.
-
WARNING: HEALTH CARE DERAILMENT IMMINENT!!!
Zack, Obamacare with its mandate on individuals to purchase government-approved health insurance plans or face a fine, as well as increased regulation on small-business owners about them providing health insurance
Show me where in the bill it says that, and I might believe you didn't just memorize Glenn Beck propoganda.
-
So are you telling me the bill does not force individuals to have health insurance that meets certain government-mandated coverage requirements or be fined?
Also, the provisions about employers providing insurance or face fines per person on the payroll, not just those without, apply as low as 50 employees I believe, and 50 employees is still small-business level.
-
So are you telling me the bill does not force individuals to have health insurance that meets certain government-mandated coverage requirements or be fined?
Also, the provisions about employers providing insurance or face fines per person on the payroll, not just those without, apply as low as 50 employees I believe, and 50 employees is still small-business level.
I'm not saying anything, other than to provide evidence for your claim.
-
http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/03/26/joint-committee-on-taxation-confirms-that-obamacare-does-not-enforce-individual-mandate/ (http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/03/26/joint-committee-on-taxation-confirms-that-obamacare-does-not-enforce-individual-mandate/)
Oh, and that article has an interesting twist. It says that while a minimum level of insurance coverage is mandated (it even includes the section of the bill that forces penalties for non-compliance), the IRS is denied enforcement power under subtitle F of the federal tax code. It appears that you can still be assessed the penalties, they just don't count as part of regular taxes and interest does not accrue on them. Non-payment will still levy assessments against you, and they will probably count as unpaid taxes. Of course, this is before reconciliation has been completed, so they could still amend it to force payments through criminal or civil penalties.
-
And now conservatives want liberty for corporations and liberals want liberty for individuals. So what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
-
http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/03/26/joint-committee-on-taxation-confirms-that-obamacare-does-not-enforce-individual-mandate/ (http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/03/26/joint-committee-on-taxation-confirms-that-obamacare-does-not-enforce-individual-mandate/)
Oh, and that article has an interesting twist. It says that while a minimum level of insurance coverage is mandated (it even includes the section of the bill that forces penalties for non-compliance), the IRS is denied enforcement power under subtitle F of the federal tax code. It appears that you can still be assessed the penalties, they just don't count as part of regular taxes and interest does not accrue on them. Non-payment will still levy assessments against you, and they will probably count as unpaid taxes. Of course, this is before reconciliation has been completed, so they could still amend it to force payments through criminal or civil penalties.
The fact you are incapable of quoting the text of the bill itself and must rely on secondary sources when called to is somewhat disturbing.
-
seriously, we're requiring proof through direct text that insurance is now mandated? that is just reaching. if you don't know that as fact by now, you are in no position qualified to be discussing the health care bill at all.
-
Well according to Fox News, nobody has ever read the bill. Which means it was probably written directly by god, I guess.
-
They are right, it is a mandate to buy health insurance, and it does introduce regulations on businesses and on the insurance industry.
They are wrong about it being a bad thing though. Fewer people will be going bankrupt from being sick without insurance, ER visits won't cost the government so much money as the people showing up will have insurance, and (if it works) there will be a shift from emergency care to treating people early. All this will lead to a more productive workforce that will feed back into the system.
-
Yeah, I have to say, anything that mandates preventative care over palliative care is going to save a ton of money in the long run.
-
I personally don't like having mandated health insurance without a public option. I don't mind being told I need to buy insurance--i'd rather just buy from someone who's looking out for my interests.
-
I agree, a public option to help keep the insurance industry honest would be preferable. More capitalist too, inspiring change through competition rather than through invasive regulation and punishment.
-
seriously, we're requiring proof through direct text that insurance is now mandated? that is just reaching. if you don't know that as fact by now, you are in no position qualified to be discussing the health care bill at all.
Now originally I was simply commenting on the fact that, instead of giving his argument greater legitimacy and impact by directly quoting, he went for a secondary source that does none of these things. But you started this.
Let us catalogue the logical fail.
Bill is Primary Source.
You are stating Primary Source has no relevance when you are called on to directly quote Primary Source.
You are stating that knowledge of Primary Source is not required to be an authority on Primary Source.
This means you stating that Primary Source is not relevant to discussing Primary Source, its effects, meaning, or anything about it.
This level of laziness, logical incompetence, or raw malice towards my posistion that you'd stoop this low is unconscienceable.
-
So basically you are asking him to read a 1206 page document, with no index, to find the particular part he needed. You can't have an argument, excuse me, a discussion in anything approaching even real(forum) time like that. It would have taken weeks.
-
So basically you are asking him to read a 1206 page document, with no index, to find the particular part he needed. You can't have an argument, excuse me, a discussion in anything approaching even real(forum) time like that. It would have taken weeks.
Oh come now. Surely one of his many secondary sources bothered to quote it directly? Wikipedia? Simple search function?
Or are you telling me everything he's cited is tertiary source?
This is also irrevelant to the point that if he's not actually read the thing that's worrying.
-
When do certain things enter common knowledge. . .
I say the Constitution gives me a right to free speech - barring any dispute over what that MEANS - I've never been asked to cite my source for that.
One of the core tenants of this bill is that it requires people to purchase insurance - through their own means or through tax subsidies. I heard it on CNN or something. . .
That "big government.com" source that has been posted; while having a huge potential for bias, does cite sources. I feel like a government report counts as a reliable source.
By a show of hands; who's sat down and read this entire bill, word for word (I don't mean skimming)?
For those who would like to really know about what they're defending/attacking, instead of relying on dubious secondary sources, have fun:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Senate_health_care_bill.pdf It's only 2409 pages.
For those who want some specifics, but haven't read the entire bill, here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
EDIT: It also appears that some of the stuff being done it actually the bill modifying the Internal Revenue Code.
See page 8:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/House_reconciliation_package_031610.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
-
{grammar fascist}
"irrelevant" is not a word. I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.
{/grammar fascist}
-
I say the Constitution gives me a right to free speech - barring any dispute over what that MEANS - I've never been asked to cite my source for that.
You know as well as I that's not remotely comparable. They don't teach about the health care bill in school. (And probably shouldn't for about a decade until the impact's really been sorted out, but the textbook companies are busily writing stuff up write now I'm sure because they're evil bastards.)
One of the core tenants of this bill is that it requires people to purchase insurance - through their own means or through tax subsidies. I heard it on CNN or something. . .
Again, I point out my original comment was about the argument not being made as well as it could have been.
Then somebody has to come along and jump off the slippery slope about it not being at all necessary to know what you're talking about.
By a show of hands; who's sat down and read this entire bill, word for word (I don't mean skimming)?
And by attaching a no-skimming sign to it you simply betray your bias since I never made a suggestion like that (and would argue that you should skim most stuff that comes out of Congress if you read it, for the benefit of your own sanity).
"irrelevant" is not a word. I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.
My dictonary and at least one noted linguist (Richard Lederer) would disagree.
Also, nice failure to engage with the argument.
-
{grammar fascist}
"irrelevant" is not a word. I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.
{/grammar fascist}
maybe you mean irregardless.
-
Which is funny, given that this side conversation is irrelevant to the current discussion. :p
-
Also, nice failure to engage with the argument.
I didn't engage on the argument, because this argument is actually going on in another thread, this thread was about the Government overreaching a different power unrelated to health care.
-
{grammar fascist}
"irrelevant" is not a word. I was informed of this by a very large man who got very irate when I used to use it a lot.
{/grammar fascist}
Irrelevant is a word.
You're thinking of irregardless.
-
I think you are right.
-
Sorry to be a crazy Nazi about it.
By the way Liberator, in spite of all our past disagreements I must say you've been (in my eyes) a pleasure to have around on the forums lately. It's good to see you outside of GenDisc and even in GD things seem more civil.
-
Don't jinx it, man.
-
seriously, we're requiring proof through direct text that insurance is now mandated? that is just reaching. if you don't know that as fact by now, you are in no position qualified to be discussing the health care bill at all.
Now originally I was simply commenting on the fact that, instead of giving his argument greater legitimacy and impact by directly quoting, he went for a secondary source that does none of these things. But you started this.
Let us catalogue the logical fail.
Bill is Primary Source.
You are stating Primary Source has no relevance when you are called on to directly quote Primary Source.
You are stating that knowledge of Primary Source is not required to be an authority on Primary Source.
This means you stating that Primary Source is not relevant to discussing Primary Source, its effects, meaning, or anything about it.
This level of laziness, logical incompetence, or raw malice towards my posistion that you'd stoop this low is unconscienceable.
i stated absolutely NONE of that. since you are such a fan of citing, maybe you can cite where in my post said fallacies appear.
do you EVER actually argue a point, or just try to tear down everyone else's?
-
You Americans are CRAZY.
In most of the world we have public health care. - It applies to everyone.
You also have public health care. - It doesn't apply to everyone.
Obama would like to mandate that it *does*.
To do that funds have to come from somewhere. There are various ways how this is financed in the world. He could have skimmed it off from taxes and raise/shift taxes. Instead a more complex scheme was drawn up where the Average Joe can decide how he'll finance his own health-care.
You think that mandating that you should *finance* your own health-care is undemocratic. Tell me, if he doesn't pay for - and YOU WON'T CAUSE it's *HIS* HEALTH-CARE (thank you very much, you've made at least that clear) - who will?
Right now all that can be extracted from the clutches of tax system is the bare minimum to ensure that people don't die when care is available. However the funny thing is: it's NOT available! Unless you're eligible for medicare/fedicare your expenses will ruin you and for all intents and purposes you'll become an indentured servant.
Extending this bare minimum of safety to everyone doesn't seem like such a "facist" thing to me.
This is the nation where 10% of the population own 60% of all the wealth. With a finer brush the same arguement can be made that actually 2% owns 30-40%.
Who has anything to loose in this deal? All those who are uninsured right now and are a single ailment or accident away from total financial ruin? All of you who're already in terror because it's your employer who owns your insurance not you?
...all the super rich who might not get that 4th yacht or 2nd palatial mansion in case the bill goes through?
This is the most "Christian" nation on Earth.
You sicken me.
-
That's what I've been trying to say...but the rich are already out there spreading misinformation among the masses with fears of "communism" and "government takeover" just so they can make it seem like people actually have a grassroots opposition to the bill.
-
What part of "unsustainable" is hard to understand?
The much touted Social Security system is going to be bankrupt in less than 2 decades. Hawaii can't afford the public health care system they designed for themselves. NONE of this stuff is free, someone has to pay for it. I guess you guys like getting 3/4 or more of your pay taken from you to pay for stuff you'll never see or benefit from, much your kids or grand kids?
This isn't about health care. It never was. It's about control. It's about setting the stage so that they can control every aspect of your life, because they think they know better than you how to live it.
-
Liberator: Here in Germany, we've had public health care in one form or another for more than a hundred years now. While there is a growing problem due to demographic change, and the system has to change, noone in their right mind is suggesting abandoning it for the completely idiotic largely private system you Americans use.
Also, I don't know whose control is more dangerous. That of a right-wing, religiously motivated coalition of morons who think that experts are people who need to be stood up against, or those of the guys who are in power now.
As far as I can tell, the American right wing, with its ongoing love affair with big money, strange religions and a weirdly skewed way of interpreting things like Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other of those values you pray too in the morning is more dangerous than the alternative.
Seriously, what the **** is so bad about a system that guarantees that your life is not ended by some accident or some random stroke of bad luck regarding genetics?
-
What part of "unsustainable" is hard to understand?
The much touted Social Security system is going to be bankrupt in less than 2 decades. Hawaii can't afford the public health care system they designed for themselves. NONE of this stuff is free, someone has to pay for it. I guess you guys like getting 3/4 or more of your pay taken from you to pay for stuff you'll never see or benefit from, much your kids or grand kids?
This isn't about health care. It never was. It's about control. It's about setting the stage so that they can control every aspect of your life, because they think they know better than you how to live it.
First, I'd like cited sources about Hawaii's healthcare system being unsustainable. They've got such a limited population due to geographic isolation and the cost of relocation that there isn't going to be a sudden growth or decline anytime soon, and businesses that don't like paying for an employee's healthcare have a really, really difficult time relocating back to the lower 48.
Second, for the 59453739th time, your pay isn't being taxed. Unless you somehow make $250K+ a year, then you're not going to see a dime come out of your paycheck for this. No, this stuff isn't free--that's why the absolute most rich are going to be paying for it. You only think you're going to pay for it because you've been lied to.
And third, yes, it is about health care. It's about the 44 million who are uninsured and a runaway corrupt cartel of private insurance companies. It's about people essentially being their right to life is a luxury, not a basic human right. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself on this.
-
Nuclear, a significant portion of the uninsured are capable of being insured but for some reason don't have it. That 44 million includes young adults who think they don't need it, rich people who think they don't need it, residents of this country who are here illegally (and should not have their health care paid for by taxpayer dollars), and people eligible for Medicare/Medicaid but haven't signed up for either of those programs. The number of American citizens and legal residents who can't get insurance is actually a lot lower than 44 million.
-
Yeah, it's true, plenty of people are eligible for coverage but don't have it, but still that leaves damn near 27 million that need coverage and A) can't get it, B) can't afford it or C) are denied it because they had a cough at some point in their life.
-
I was under the impression that non-residents were ineligible for any subsidies.
-
I can't express how sick I am of "it's not actually 44million, it's less than that."
-
I was under the impression that non-residents were ineligible for any subsidies.
They're not, but that twenty seven million mostly comprises US citizens who can't afford it and children/young adults who are uninsured.
-
What an enormously complete hijack you guys have going.
I mention Obama in the OP and suddenly the topic is health care. Well done.
-
I was gonna say, I thought I was in the wrong thread for a minute. Where did the copyright stuff go? :p
-
Copyright is boring. The fix is to make copyrights expire 20 years after the death of the creator, not have them devolve in purpetuity to what are essentially IP holding companies and the problem is largely solved.
On health care, zack, I found this article (http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2009/10/26/editorial1.html) from back in October.
-
A couple of valid points with lots of nonsequitors thrown in.
Plus I like how right in the beginning, the author goes "so what if it's the healthiest state with the longest lifespan, making sure people are healthy is expensive! BAAAWWWW"
-
I think all posts debating healthcare should be split and merged into one historic megathread, then pinned.
-
give that man a cigar
-
That.... might actually make for a pretty good read. Amusing, at least.
-
It'd be god awful repetitive though.
But yes, the healthcare debate here has had its moments...
-
I'd actually kind of like to see just how many pages of pointless argument we've filled up with our bickering. Same for our religion-based slapfights. I think we could break a hundred pages, if someone really wanted to scour the pages of GenDisc. :P
-
That person would be collapsed on their toilet with blood splurting out their nose in a day. :p