AlienIsGODOh so i should just follow the rest of the flock. I do not think i am looking at anything wrong, ppl are picking apart my posts and using selective parts to thier advantage. I have 3 x stated that i wish her the best IF these issues are resolved (or even exsist, Marineborn had a valid point) therefore, NO it has not prompted me to think im looking at this wrong, I think that I more insight to this kind of stuff than most ppl on the site do ( i have done outreach to homeless and troubled youth in the past) im 35 not 21 or 22 so i do have SOME life experience to draw from

I never said to take their opinion. it was meant to make you re-evaluate your own.

going by your logic... all of us shouldnt take you serious now that we know your past.

btarunrIt doesn't matter if she knifed herself in the past. As if your politicians are saints that never did coke or went to strip clubs, and as if that's any less "contemptuous", if you find old knifing scars contemptuous.

Andersdotter's answer to haters would be "I'm in the EU Parliament, biatch!"

Right man. I'd rather take someone that knifed herself than somebody who forced a woman's head on his .l. like Mr H.C. Now if it were me personally, I'd rather take the second option but that's for another debate. :laugh:

Mr McCThe potential for abuse of power through digital networks — upon which we as citizens now depend for nearly everything, including our politics — is one of the most insidious threats to democracy in the Internet age. We live in a time of tremendous political polarization. Public trust in both government and corporations is low, and deservedly so. This is no time for politicians and industry lobbyists in Washington to be devising new Internet censorship mechanisms, adding new opportunities for abuse of corporate and government power over online speech. While American intellectual property deserves protection, that protection must be won and defended in a manner that does not stifle innovation, erode due process under the law, and weaken the protection of political and civil rights on the Internet.

www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/firewall-law-could-infringe-on-free-speech.html

exactly, it does not favor corporate interests at all. it only empowers politicians who then by proxy control corporations. sure, a few corporations may benefit through corruption, but that does not mean corporations as a whole benefit from the legislation. it is important people get their argument correct instead of resorting to the same old "corporations are evil" mantra. especially after those same people vote for the biggest corporatists that exist!

Easy Rhinoexactly, it does not favor corporate interests at all. it only empowers politicians who then by proxy control corporations. sure, a few corporations may benefit through corruption, but that does not mean corporations as a whole benefit from the legislation. it is important people get their argument correct instead of resorting to the same old "corporations are evil" mantra. especially after those same people vote for the biggest corporatists that exist!

I believe that corporations control politicians, they are simply puppets held aloft before the masses. It favours those companies that are pressuring to have it passed.

I don't see how something happening in the US should be somewhere near the top of her list. Ok, it's not to be ignored because others will follow, but they're probably dealing with stuff here seeing that there's a lot of European based hosting (especially in the Nordic Countries) where anything can be hoisted due to the lack of mentioning in their legislation, probably to "protect" them.

Mr McCI believe that corporations control politicians, they are simply puppets held aloft before the masses. It favours those companies that are pressuring to have it passed.

corporations cannot pass legislation, only politicians can.

sure, it benefits a handful of companies but not "corporations" as a whole. if anything, most of those companies who believe an internet firewall would benefit them will actually hurt them in the long run. like all legislation, granting more government involvement in our lives, this would concentrate power at the top. we need to stop voting for people who want to concentrate power.

FrickWhy can you not take her seriously?

that was my 1st post that i stated that, i did elaborate that if she is past that then by all means success to her.

going by your logic... all of us shouldnt take you serious now that we know your past.

@FX your logic is flawed. I have received treatment for my addictions, been clean for over 8 years. I can think clearly now and this is my opinon on 1 particular subject. i have stated over 9000 times that if she has received treatment for the issues that caused her to blade (hypothetically speaking) then she is a stronger person and better for it and she should have success as a member of parliament. Its just that at age 24, the mental issues are somewhat fresh still. It takes most ppl a long time to deal with depression and the various side effects that it can cause.

Easy Rhinocorporations cannot pass legislation, only politicians can.

Politicians cannot fund election campaigns, only banks and corporations can.

Easy Rhinosure, it benefits a handful of companies but not "corporations" as a whole. if anything, most of those companies who believe an internet firewall would benefit them will actually hurt them in the long run. like all legislation, granting more government involvement in our lives, this would concentrate power at the top. we need to stop voting for people who want to concentrate power.

People are not pushing for this legislation, it is the work of corporations. The protection of intellectual property is being employed as grounds for the implementation of systems that will strengthen monopoly positions. In the same fashion as the impending Soviet invasion of yesteryear, piracy simply serves as the bogeyman of the digital era that affords those in control (not us, not the politcians) with the necessary pretext with which to inflict all manner of woe upon us.

Mr McCPoliticians cannot fund election campaigns, only banks and corporations can.

individuals who work for corporations donate to election campaigns. what do you think a corporation is? it is after all a group of individuals organized toward a common goal. your argument is symptomatic of people trying to solve the effect and not the cause. campaign dollars do not vote, citizens do. it is the fault of the citizenry who simply want to watch american idol and eat a big mac. these same people are surprised when the guy they voted for does not solve a single problem they campaigned against. yet they will continue to vote based on how many times they see a campaign ad and how the person looks and speaks.

People are not pushing for this legislation, it is the work of corporations. The protection of intellectual property is being employed as grounds for the implementation of systems that will strengthen monopoly positions. In the same fashion as the impending Soviet invasion of yesteryear, piracy simply serves as the bogeyman of the digital era that affords those in control (not us, not the politcians) with the necessary pretext with which to inflict all manner of woe upon us.

i agree. piracy is a boogeyman used by corporations and politicians. but only politicians have the authority to write a bill and turn it into a law. so to demonize corporations is fine so long as you boycott their service. but then to turn around and vote for the same politicians who worked to get the bill passed AND THEN blame corporations is just silly. time to address the cause and not the effect.

Easy Rhinoindividuals who work for corporations donate to election campaigns. what do you think a corporation is? it is after all a group of individuals organized toward a common goal. your argument is symptomatic of people trying to solve the effect and not the cause. campaign dollars do not vote, citizens do. it is the fault of the citizenry who simply want to watch american idol and eat a big mac. these same people are surprised when the guy they voted for does not solve a single problem they campaigned against. yet they will continue to vote based on how many times they see a campaign ad and how the person looks and speaks.



i agree. piracy is a boogeyman used by corporations and politicians. but only politicians have the authority to write a bill and turn it into a law. so to demonize corporations is fine so long as you boycott their service. but then to turn around and vote for the same politicians who worked to get the bill passed AND THEN blame corporations is just silly. time to address the cause and not the effect.

It isn't a question odf demonising corpoarations, it is simply a matter of recognising the complete control they wield, if that amounts to demonisation, so be it.

How many people clicked on her photo to see what she looks like? Come on... be honest :D

If you DID click the photo, then click here

I cannot see it any different as that democracy still has hope in the old continent. Very promising news. :toast:

Some of the comments in this thread made me sad to be a part of tpu.

That aside, I hope she does well and achieves change in what I agree are very archaic copyright laws.

I will freely admit my 1st post could have been worded better and I now realize thats what set everyone off. That being said a few friends of mine did some research and she highly spoken of in the political arena in Europe. Lets hope that she can accomplish what she is setting out to do.

AlienIsGODThat being said a few friends of mine did some research and she highly spoken of in the political arena in Europe. Lets hope that she can accomplish what she is setting out to do.

That's great, but you just had to go through the interview she gave to TorrentFreak (source link). The biggest myth about The Pirate Party is that they're into politics just "for teh lulz", they're not. They're seeking serious legislative powers to implement their agenda.

Free rum for all! Yar harrr! She doesn't look "Pirate" enough for me though... How can anyone take the Pirate party seriously when they don't even wear hats?! At least she wears her scars proudly on her arm. They are most likely just "kill marks" from putting down Spaniard gold barrons.

Hopefully, she understands basic economic principals.. Which is something every other politician seems to lack.

erockerFree rum for all! Yar harrr! She doesn't look "Pirate" enough for me though...

She could be a butt pirate ya know!

erockerFree rum for all! Yar harrr! She doesn't look "Pirate" enough for me though... How can anyone take the Pirate party seriously when they don't even wear hats?!

Hopefully, she understands basic economic principals.. Which is something every other politician seems to lack.

Pirate Economic Principles

Lesson 1:

Loot & Pillage.

Congratulations you are now a Pirate, here is your complimentary eyepatch!

What do you mean she doesnt look like a pirate? Look at those bad ass scars! You cant get more pirate than that

LDNLWhat do you mean she doesnt look like a pirate? Look at those bad ass scars! You cant get more pirate than that

Yes, you buy a talking parrot.

from some reading a friend did and a comment:

This is one comment I read

She has totally owned every opponent in every political discussion I have ever seen. To the point where the opponent start stuttering because they realize they are utterly defeated and just start trying to save their face. She is razor SHARP and have a gigantic intellect. I would not want to face her in a debate believe you me!

Im sure she will do everything in her power to incorporate change ;)

AlienIsGODfrom some reading a friend did and a comment:

This is one comment I read

She has totally owned every opponent in every political discussion I have ever seen. To the point where the opponent start stuttering because they realize they are utterly defeated and just start trying to save their face. She is razor SHARP and have a gigantic intellect. I would not want to face her in a debate believe you me!

Im sure she will do everything in her power to incorporate change ;)

:roll: after all the discussion about the scars and then reading that :laugh:

Mr McCIt isn't a question odf demonising corpoarations, it is simply a matter of recognising the complete control they wield, if that amounts to demonisation, so be it.

i dont believe corporations have very much power at all since the size and intrusiveness of government completely overshadows them. decrease the size of government and you decrease corporatism and corruption. focus your efforts there.

erockerFree rum for all! Yar harrr! She doesn't look "Pirate" enough for me though... How can anyone take the Pirate party seriously when they don't even wear hats?! At least she wears her scars proudly on her arm. They are most likely just "kill marks" from putting down Spaniard gold barrons.

Hopefully, she understands basic economic principals.. Which is something every other politician seems to lack.

A wench is a wench, be she on land or sea... errr, Sweden or Baltic...

I wouldn't go that far to include "skilled in economics" at today's politician's feature/bug list. With system being intentionally and inherently flawed from the start, it is somewhat illogical to expect from children of it's creators to be able to fix it. /end political rant

Abandon ship, ye scurvy dogs... And good tidings to you, Amelia lass...

EDIT:

Easy Rhinoi dont believe corporations have very much power at all since the size and intrusiveness of government completely overshadows them. decrease the size of government and you decrease corporatism and corruption. focus your efforts there.

Au contraire, my dear Rhino, lobbies and their sleazeballs that are omnipresent in D.C. and all around the globe, don't support (your) free marketism and invisible hand theory at all.

I read every post in the thread... What was the thread about?
National Firewall?
Cutting?
Scars?
Pirates?

Whoa, head spins!

Goodluck to the lady, hope she is in good health, and makes intelligent decisions for her term in office.:)