50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Had to chuckle when I saw Sanford's name. There's no question he is a privacy advocate. I mean, he's out there walking on the Appalachian Trail getting his thoughts together and . . . oh, wait.
Senate votes to let ISP's sell your browsing history without your consent.
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Had to chuckle when I saw Sanford's name. There's no question he is a privacy advocate. I mean, he's out there walking on the Appalachian Trail getting his thoughts together and . . . oh, wait.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
i still don't get how this is Obama's fault and republicans fixing something
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
To expand on this. I'm fine with Google Ads. Google Ads lets me use many of Google's amazing services (Android, Gmail, Maps, Chrome, etc.) for free. Only Google Service I pay for is the add free ones (Playmusic/Youtube Red) and to me that's fine. Google provides great services and by letting them target me with Ads I get those great services for free. THey're open about what they're doing if you pay attention. Facebook is a bit shadier to me, they're open about what they do, but not always about how they do it. And sometimes ads on facebook get too specific for my liking suggesting deeper data mining than they're saying, but maybe it's just been too long since I"ve read their ad policy.
BTW since it's the topic of ad selling and this is the political forum, Facebook thinks my politics are MOderate, don't understand how they got there other than the fact I post nothing positive about the democrats or republicans and only share posts about things that I care about and not all the things whichis what leads to the liberal/conservative social media echo chambers.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
If our elected officials voted for this then isnt this the will of the people? Really sucks when other people to vote away your rights doesnt it?
sturg33
I
Yep... Obamacare is the will of the people but this is big bad republicans being assholes
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
If by "the people" you mean the ISP lobbyists, than yes. Comcast cannot exist without crony capitalism.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You know what party wouldn't be selling us out left and right with bills like this?
sturg33
I
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Party doesn't matter. If a libertarian is getting money thrown at him/her to get elected, they'd cowtow to this bill. Considering son of St. Ron Paul, Rand Paul was a co-sponsor. He didn't vote mind you, but he didn't have to. 50 confirmed yeses meant that he didn't have to actually vote for it and could stick to his "guns"
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Yawn. Wake me when there is a viable libertarian party that amounts to more than a protest vote.
One interesting thing about is how you're casting libertarians as protectors of the little guy in the case of internet privacy...I wonder how that stacks up with an otherwise across-the-board anti-regulation regime.
Like, we can make laws protecting privacy but not protecting us from carcinogens in the air and water. The free market will take care of that.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Rand is playing the game so the media won't blacklist him like his father when he runs for president. If he doesn't appear to be corrupt they will call him too extreme to cover.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
That's why we need ranked choice voting, it's hard to work our way up in votes when both major parties nominate candidates so bad that each side considers the other candidate to be literally hitler.
I doubt there is any party your going to agree with 100%. But hey, keep voting for the same 2 parties, it's going great so far.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well that's a convenient load of Bull****.
sturg33
I
This is a common criticism, but one that will never be address until people like you change how you think.
Justin Amash is a viable libertarian candidate, and he as won elections. So did Ron Paul. Gary Johnson was a governor.
But when these people show up, you call them unicorns. You'll never support an actual libertarian candidate bc he/she "can't win"
So there will never be any pleasing you. You'll never support one bc you don't agree with them, and that's fine. But you should frame it like that rather than voting for a unicorn.
If you want to shut us libertarians up, put us on the debate stage, vote us into office, and let us fail. At this point what do you have to lose?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
No, I call your Platonic Ideal Libertarian Alternative a unicorn. I use that language because you propose these pat, easy--one might even say magical--solutions to problems, with the luxury that you've never had to actually test their success or failure IRL.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Senator Sanders advocates for just such a model. I agree that it's the direction we should move, and one of the only ways to disturb the two-party duopoly (which is why most in both parties oppose it).
sturg33
I
So what do you want from me? I have my beliefs and I advocate and vote for them. If my choice doesn't win I suppose you suggest I just succumb to the2 party lesser of two evils system?