Skip to main content

View Diary: HR 1606: real agenda revealed (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Eat Ramen Noodles (0+ / 0-)

    inspire change...don't back down

    by missliberties on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 06:34:02 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  pathetic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bronte17, Dysfraxion

      you think that's a troll?  lacks substance does it?

      can't see where I'm coming from eh?

      I couldn't care less.

      •  So... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boadicea

        ...when the FEC tells you to register your blog as a political action committee, you'll go along with it?

        I won't.  I take no ad money, but Democracy 21 is gunning for me and Kos and pretty much anyone who dares do anything politically effective on the cheap.  (And really, what Kos is doing, he does at a fraction of the cost of, say, the folks who run a national magazine.)

        •  how so? (0+ / 0-)

          what about the 10,000$ exception, few blogs are not covered by that.  Also, see, kos hasn't really clarified the degree by which this is only a problem because dkos is FOR-PROFIT.

          What about the munging of the issues.  If 1066 does not pass, that doesn't mean those other regulations kos mentions go into affect.

          He's munging the issues together in a sensationalist way, "they're trying to shut us down!"

          Even if it were true it would still be better to separate things out, analyse details as separate when they are separate, to think honestly through things... kos keeps saying, there is no Halliburton Blog... don't worry until it happens.  HE HAS NO PRINCIPLE reason to doubt that an internet where corporations are unfetterec by CFR would lead to abuse to the intent of CFR in general.  There cannot be one... of course they will do their best to exploit whatever law comes along.

      •  Does all success have to be bad? (0+ / 0-)

        as in the success Kos has had in trying to build a netroots democratic movement. Even Kos must eat. And it is nice to get paid for your work.

        Why does success, in your mind, equate with evil motives?

        (I see where you coming from, but it is trolling imho, to turn an discussion into a personal attack)

        inspire change...don't back down

        by missliberties on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:19:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You should read what I said again... (0+ / 0-)

          ... and I almost never say that, I usually just reword it.  I'll reword it, but seriously, read what I wrote and tell me if I'm fair to claim you are projecting, totally projecting that I equate success with evil motives.

          It's a strange assumption and I have not taken that position.

          I've said:

          • corporations need to be regulated
          • you can't legislate well for the nation by lobbying to preserve your clients business model
          • a for-profit or not-for-profit both have their place, which you choose to operate as sets the tone for the type of regulation you should have.
          • you cannot run a for-profit but pretend it's really public infrastructure
          • I am against exceptionalism of all kinds but especially internet exceptionalism by which it's supposedly all different... to new for rules.
          • I don't believe in laissez-faire policies of any kind when it comes to economic activity
          • Kos doesn't seem to admit this type of thing that preserves dkos as is also enables other corporations, e.g. Fox or Sinclair... he just says, "well, it hasn't happened yet!" Um... they WILL try to exploit 1606 if it's passed. I don't know if they could or not, but kos hasn't given any reason why they wouldn't.

          So where I stand I think kos is thinking about his baby, which is understandable, and something to watch out for. We can be drawn into thinking like pro-business republicans because we love one business, but that would be bad.

          •  Your model still equates to (0+ / 0-)

            all business is bad.

            How can you have a functioning society without business?

            inspire change...don't back down

            by missliberties on Thu Mar 16, 2006 at 07:53:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  how so (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think all business is bad.

              Can you accept I can tell I don't think all business is bad. So tell me what makes business all bad in that and I'll likely drop it, because I like business.

              •  did you not mean to say this? (0+ / 0-)

                So where I stand I think kos is thinking about his baby, which is understandable, and something to watch out for. We can be drawn into thinking like pro-business republicans because we love one business, but that would be bad.

                inspire change...don't back down

                by missliberties on Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 04:48:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm stunned (0+ / 0-)

                  I have no idea what you draw from the words you read.

                  How is "all business bad" drawn from a caution not to be "like pro-business republicans"... I can, for example, be a pro-business liberal.

                  The alternatives to being a pro-business republican are many, do you suppose the only alternative is believing all business is bad?

                  I am concerned other corporations will exploit any internet loophole.  That we'll think abouut what suits dkos and not figure out how this impacts the whole.

            •  bad (0+ / 0-)

              by the way, I didn't say anything about bad, you are reading these things in, because I have said corporations do need to be subject to regulations, the corporations we LOVE and the one's we don't.

          •  Unfortunately, I can't agree with you (0+ / 0-)

            While you make some points that do need to be discussed, we are talking about a specific bill--not about the way things should be in a perfect world with perfect regulation.

            Focus on this bill and not the broader debate and the answer becomes clear.

            Until I see a comprehensive bill designed to address the media exemptions exploited by Fox and right-wing Talk Radio, then I will not support regulation of political websites, corporate or non-profit or otherwise. As I understand it, HR 1606 preserves the status quo for now. That's good enough for me, instead of letting DC lobbyists and established interests strangle the baby in its cradle.

            Yes it's a complex subject and there are discussions that should be had (here and elsewhere). I would probably support a bill requiring the disclosure of  campaign-financed blogs. As things develop, it may become clear that some kind of general regulation is a good idea. But that day hasn't arrived yet and internet freedom needs to be preserved.

            Any insinuation that Kos is opposing regulation for his own pecuniary benefit, at the expense of the greater good seems to me like a bright red herring. And a cheap one at that. Defend it if you can.

            If you think HR 1606 is a bad idea then educate me on the specifics. In the meantime I will trust Kos and others that we need to fight having DC screw us.

            •  I didn't say that (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't say what Kos likes about his blog, I think it is the blogs influence more than money.

              It doesn't matter, maybe he loves the software, the point is of course he likes it and it happens to be incorporated as a for profit.

              I'm concerned other private organizations will exploit any exceptions. I'm sorry if they are all lumped together as for-profit private ventures but that's the way it was done.

              see?

              I don't mind kos making money off dkos, I'm on record 1000 times saying I think that's grand and I mean it. That doesn't mean I want corporate loop holes on the internet.

          •  HR 1606 preserves the status quo (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vtdem, Adam B, missliberties

            WHy hasn't the law been exploited in the last four years? All HR 1606 does is prevent the FEC from changing current law.

            Not to say it might not be exploited in the future. But that's why we'll be deliberating over HR 4900 and whatever other bills are introduced to address such violations.

            •  And to add (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Adam B

              That's not to say that partisans couldn't use the current law (circa 2004) to abuse the process with complaints either (as in all those things that CDT covers not included in 1606). But better the devil you know...

            •  I'm convinced (0+ / 0-)

              I'm convinced already that 4900 sounds bad.

              The status quo has the advantage of not being confirmed, this is chilling. When the law makes it official, then they can act SURE there will be and can be no action against them. They can pour in however much they like at that point whereas right now there would is an unknown threshold of tolerance at which point the FEC is free to act.

            •  just a short list of specifics (0+ / 0-)

              I am not sure which features are threatened by no law being enacted at all, letting the FEC sort out applying current law to the internet, like they are supposed to basically.

    •  miss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LiterateWolf

      you know dkos has sunk too far if I can't make a strong challenge like this... can you justify your rating?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site