sopa MPAA Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay B

[trag3dy]

If you have money there is nothing wrong with donating it to campaigns for those who share your views. If the politician you supported no longer supports your views why on earth would you continue to fund them?

Are you being purposefully dense, or playing devils advocate here? Or do you really think the mpaa is in the right?

[xbamaris]

Are you being purposefully dense, or playing devils advocate here? Or do you really think the mpaa is in the right?

I'm just going to say pack34's a troll.

[Stoffel]

I'm just going to say pack34's a troll.

Or he works for MPAA :)

[xbamaris]

Or he works for MPAA :)

Or is Chris Dodd himself. By the way he talks it just sounds exactly like what Chris Dodd has been trying to brainwash into people.

[pack34]

Are you being purposefully dense, or playing devils advocate here? Or do you really think the mpaa is in the right?

I fail to see where they did any wrong. Corporate campaign contributions are legal.

[SierraSonic]

And? I don't see the issue.

Corporations are groups of people.

http://en.wikipedia....rsonhood_debate

Yea, and made up as such, the people of the corporation will vote, there is no reason for the foundation where they work, to also have an opinion.

Especially since you know full damn well, that most of the people that work there don't have a say in what the corporation heads wants.

[Stoffel]

I fail to see where they did any wrong. Corporate campaign contributions are legal.

Sadly enough it is yeah, and that's what should change in the first place

[xbamaris]

I fail to see where they did any wrong. Corporate campaign contributions are legal.

Lol. No. They arnt. Atleast they shouldnt be. Presidential candidates arn't allowed to receieve direct contributions in any way. thats why they have to rely on

Super-Pacs. In which case the candidates SHOULDN'T have any control over. And if they are found in contact with the Super-Pacs they are arrested and fined quite a bit.

This same rule should apply to any politician.

pack34 your basically saying that Politicians have the right to be puppets to corporations. Thats called corruption. Therefore, your basically supporting government corruption.

[trag3dy]

I fail to see where they did any wrong. Corporate campaign contributions are legal.

Yeah? So you're saying the politicians should do what the corporations (a very small minority of people) want even when the majority of the rest of the people in the US (not to mention the entire world) tell them we dont want what the corporations are pushing?

Yes it happens every day sadly, but as far as sopa and pipa go... still?

[pack34]

Sadly enough it is yeah, and that's what should change in the first place

So, what the MPAA did was legal? Correct? The situation changed and the policiticans no longer agreed with them. So the MPAA pulled their support. What's the big hoopla here?

If you believe that campaign finance laws should change then start gathering people together and pressure your congressional representatives to change the laws.

[xbamaris]

So, what the MPAA did was legal? Correct? The situation changed and the policiticans no longer agreed with them. So the MPAA pulled their support. What's the big hoopla here?

Read the title of the thread. And the article, which you obviously didn't do.

[pack34]

Yeah? So you're saying the politicians should do what the corporations (a very small minority of people) want even when the majority of the rest of the people in the US (not to mention the entire world) tell them we dont want what the corporations are pushing?

Yes it happens every day sadly, but as far as sopa and pipa go... still?

No, the politicians don't HAVE to do what the corporations want. That's exactly what happened here. The politicians changed their stance on an issue even though it would cost them campaign money. So now, the politicians aren't getting campaign money from the MPAA.

[Stoffel]

So, what the MPAA did was legal? Correct? The situation changed and the policiticans no longer agreed with them. So the MPAA pulled their support. What's the big hoopla here?

If you believe that campaign finance laws should change then start gathering people together and pressure your congressional representatives to change the laws.

Politicians are still behind copyright, they just don't want to push SOPA through

Doesn't mean they changed their point of view.

The MPAA is just acting like a little spoilt brad

[protocol7]

I know it's wishful thinking but it'd be great if this meant the end for the MPAA and RIAA racketeers.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

I have said this before to my friends and I will say it here,

The USA is the spoiled rebellious teenager of the world.

no matter how you look at it, that pretty much sums up this country

[Seizure1990]

I agree with Pack34. People here seem to be mixing up their anger at what the MPAA is fighting for, and HOW they are fighting for it.

What the copyright lobbies want is disgusting. The way they are doing it isn't (I mean, unless you want to argue that we should also get rid of the lobbies that fight FOR consumer rights)

Having said that, coming out and saying what he said on national television was awfully stupid.

[FMH]

Everytime you buy a DVD you are funding terrorism.

Piracy does not.

That is all.

Quality comment! (Y)

[Davo]

I don't see a difference. Say you were for or against abortion. If there was an election and you could donate to the politician that agreed with your stance then you'd be giving him or her a kickback?

Free speech.

If I am an individual or part of a group of people that are against abortion and donate to lawmakers pushing for anti-abortion, it makes sense. I am contributing to the effort of trying to get that passed.

If I am a nursery or day care and am donating to the same cause, it makes sense because I have a vested interest in making sure more children are born. If more laws concerning anti-abortion start getting pushed through, my business starts benefitting from the new laws and the lawmakers enjoy a steady stream of money from their backers. It's still legal though because while it might seem fishy, it's speculation.

However, when those laws don't get passed and I straight up call out lawmakers saying, "I will no longer contribute if you don't pass these laws", it should be illegal. You are no longer contributing to the cause, you are asking to pay for laws to be made which favor you.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I don't see what the issue is here. They donated money to campaigns for those they believed to protect their interests. If the politicians are no longer protecting their interests they pull their support and their funds. This makes sense to me.

You have no problems with corruption, then? Paying for legislation should be illegal, and is definitely imorral.

I fail to see where they did any wrong. Corporate campaign contributions are legal.

(il)legality and morality are not the same.

[Growled Member]

where is it the governments business to protect the entertainment industry?

It isn't but somehow the government has the idea that they should.

[MidnightDevil]

The "sposoring" or "supporting" or "bribing" or call it whatever you want it comes with one thing alone - giving money. The line between sponsoring and bribing is about the effectiveness of it. If the bill passes, they are supporters, if not, they are bribers.

I agree with one thing, in the end they aren't making their own decisions. Why the hell would you need to "sponsor" or whatever you call it to pass a bill, that IF in the first place was correct, most humans would realize that. Like good vs evil. And the evil here are the organizations with old minds that haven't got a clue how things work these days, so they implement bills that will only do more harm than good.

[Davo]

Supporters are behind the cause, whether or not there is any progress. Bribery is when you're "supporting" solely for the purpose of getting rules/laws made.