warpus
In pork I trust
Not if it's legal.
House of Reps and Obama kill SOPA
- Thread starter choxorn
- Start date
Not if it's legal.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I really don't know where you get this cartoonish notion of governmental structures as a one-dimensional "less power/more power" slider.
"No invidual wealth or property gain" isn't the same thing as "No copyright laws or patents." And that's oversimplifying things, and the economy was hardly the only area in which we differed from the Soviet Union.
Europa Universalis III, with the end date extended to 23rd December, 2012.
Possibly I got it from the poster who is arguing for more government power?
But Congress has the power to make it legal or illegal. So your point is kinda moot.
warpus
In pork I trust
I wouldn't call a legal exchange of money corruption, that's the thing.
In my eyes, if it's legal, it's not corrupt. I think that's even what the official definition of the word is - payment for services or material which the recipient is not due, under law
I guess you could say legalized corruption is still corruption, but.. then I'll say something else, you just watch me
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Corruption just means (moral) decay. (It used to refer primarily to the physical decomposition and putrefaction of a rotting corpse, but the literal sense is rather archaic now.)
Legality does not enter into it at all. No dictionary I've checked makes any distinctions based on legality or illegality. The defining factor is a lack of integrity, especially in someone who was originally honest before succumbing to temptation.
Legality does not enter into it at all. No dictionary I've checked makes any distinctions based on legality or illegality. The defining factor is a lack of integrity, especially in someone who was originally honest before succumbing to temptation.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No, he really isn't.
You've quoted his post, but decided to delete his argument from that post. Why did you do that? Why not simply quote his argument and state a counter argument? It's there. It's easily quotable, you already decided to quote the post. But you took the effort to erase it from your response. Is it maybe because you have no counterargument to his actual argument, so you have to misrepresent it?
edit: Checking again, you even fumbled even the short sentence you did quote. Wow.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I've honestly never anyone, ever, make a blanket argument for "more government power".
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
Has anyone heard of PCIPA? Seems like another one they're trying to get through.
Why don't the idiots just give up? Theres bigger things to be dealing with than trying to create a bunch of similiar but slightly-differently-worded laws hoping one will be passed!
Sigh....
Why don't the idiots just give up? Theres bigger things to be dealing with than trying to create a bunch of similiar but slightly-differently-worded laws hoping one will be passed!
Sigh....
Traitorfish said:
We're dealing with a point, not the method used to address the point.
So, my original argument was that all inputs into the problem should be analysed - including the role of government.
Akka contested this with the argument that corporations are entirely responsible for all of the corruption, and that government needs to be strengthened to protect them from corporations.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
How does that lead you down to this laughably one-dimensional discussion about "more/less government power", exactly?
It seems that Akka wants a stronger government while I want a restricted government
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
No. He didn't.
The source is the companies that are lobbying (not that it means that the Congress is blameless, a corruptee is just as guilty as a corruptor).
As I said, why paraphrase him (wrongly) when his argument is available right there?
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,082
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL POWER when they're trying to make ANOTHER ONE OF THESE STUPID LAWS???
This one, from the sounds of it, makes your ISP track your internet usage and save it for 18 months with a lot of personal info.
This one, from the sounds of it, makes your ISP track your internet usage and save it for 18 months with a lot of personal info.
Darn - my bad, that was unintentional. I don't know if it was edited or if I just failed to read it properly.Similar threads
- Locked
