Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

He made mistakes all the time and regretted them. And he'll keep regretting them, too.

Seriously, what's this bullshit about regretting mistakes? That's a lame copout if I ever saw one.

[Luke_Prowler]

I don't know, there's something refreshing about a politician having some grain of humbleness

[Montague]

Odd, I thought Obama opposed ACTA. There is a petition to stop ACTA on whitehouse.gov and whatnot.

Guess it's too late now, just have to ride out the storm and see how it turns out. Hopefully it's not actually going to destroy the internet.

[MagmaMcFry]

*Looks at our avatars*
I'll get started on some pixel art, hopefully somebody around here is good at drawing for those that are after a truly retro avatar.

Wot?

[Loud Whispers]

Australia already has proposed some strict internet laws. Remember the black list? Your government will probably pass ACTA regardless. We probably are too late, but hell, we're not going to just let the internet die in secret like that.

[Frumple]

... okay, One: here. The larger ACTA thread. ACTA's been an issue since around 2006, when it was initially begun to be considered between the USA and Japan.. That thread started up in '09.

Two: ACTA was signed by the US back around October/September of last year. Whether Obama signed it or not was fairly irrelevant, it was already in effect. Actually checking the article now, yeah, it mentions the back-in-October thing. It... also wasn't actually Obama that signed the damn thing. It was one of our ambassadors, iirc. Doesn't change the force of the thing, but yeah.

Three: ACTA is a treaty. It's not law. That doesn't make it not frakking horrific, but it does mean that it's toothless by itself. The problem is when actual laws enabling ACTAs enforcement get through. If and when they do, they will be impossible to remove from the law books until the US backs out of the treaty, even if the hypothetical law is found to be unconstitutional, even if there is an absolute majority of the population against it. Incidentally for the states, that's what SOPA/PIPA and a number of other laws that are trying to get through is. They're means of activating ACTA.

[mcclay]

I personally think we should hijack a battle ship or something and take over Madascgar. No sitty goverments and if they try to attack us we can point out all the eclogical damage they will wreck on the world.

[MagmaMcFry]

I personally think we should hijack a battle ship or something and take over Madascgar. No sitty goverments and if they try to attack us we can point out all the eclogical damage they will wreck on the world.

I should probably point out that taking over Madagascar could possibly lead to huge ecological damage to the world.

[Canalan]

I personally think we should hijack a battle ship or something and take over Madascgar. No sitty goverments and if they try to attack us we can point out all the eclogical damage they will wreck on the world.

I should probably point out that taking over Madagascar could possibly lead to huge ecological damage to the world.

Think of it as a challenging embark.
So I'm confused.  Did Obama put his name on ACTA or not?

[Itnetlolor]

Whatever happened to investing in some aircraft carriers that were on sale?

[Frumple]

So I'm confused.  Did Obama put his name on ACTA or not?

It's considered an "executive agreement" according to that article, so it basically doesn't matter whether he did or did not specifically put his name on the treaty. It's being enforced by the branch of government he's at the top of and a big enough deal that he pretty much cannot be ignorant of it. It went through with his approval, even if not specifically with his signature.

I haven't seen a list of names specifically put on the treaty, though. Considering the continuing refusals to bring the negotiations into public purview, it might be a bit before that comes out.

[Flying Dice]

... okay, One: here. The larger ACTA thread. ACTA's been an issue since around 2006, when it was initially begun to be considered between the USA and Japan.. That thread started up in '09.

Two: ACTA was signed by the US back around October/September of last year. Whether Obama signed it or not was fairly irrelevant, it was already in effect. Actually checking the article now, yeah, it mentions the back-in-October thing. It... also wasn't actually Obama that signed the damn thing. It was one of our ambassadors, iirc. Doesn't change the force of the thing, but yeah.

Three: ACTA is a treaty. It's not law. That doesn't make it not frakking horrific, but it does mean that it's toothless by itself. The problem is when actual laws enabling ACTAs enforcement get through. If and when they do, they will be impossible to remove from the law books until the US backs out of the treaty, even if the hypothetical law is found to be unconstitutional, even if there is an absolute majority of the population against it. Incidentally for the states, that's what SOPA/PIPA and a number of other laws that are trying to get through is. They're means of activating ACTA.

This, this, this. For those of us in the U.S., our goal now is to fight tooth and nail to prevent the passage of any SOPA/PIPA-equivalent bills.

[Knight of Fools]

So, correct me if I'm wrong:

ACTA is basically the same thing as PIPA, just minutely better in some very minor instances.

ACTA can only take affect if other countries agree to jump on board with it, in which case it would be as bad as PIPA except we (The U.S.A and other countries involved) can't pull out of it willy-nilly.

All of this has been happening behind our backs, with diplomats, who are appointed, not elected, making all of the decisions.

And Obama came out and said he opposed PIPA, then turns around and gives its clone a big wet kiss behind closed doors.


...sigh. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[Johnfalcon99977]

And Obama came out and said he opposed PIPA, then turns around and gives its clone a big wet kiss behind closed doors.

Obviously this is going to develop into some juicy political love drama.

NEXT WEEK, ON LOVE IN THE WHITE-HOUSE...

[SalmonGod]

...sigh. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Nope