EU passes the "link tax"

JokerCPoC

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
629
You don't fully get that whole "Command and Chief" thing do you?

Yes, I swore an oath to defend the constitution way back in 1981, and re-affirmed that oath several times over my military career. But in every Army building that I ever walked into that had offices for people in positions of Command, there were pictures of every Commanding Officer in that chain of command and every single collect ended with the President of the United States of America.

Do you think that was just for show?
That's Commander in Chief, on Jan 21st 2021 that could change, Nov 3rd 2020 can't get here fast enough. No the military does not swear an oath to a POTUS.
Sorry but you don't swear an Oath to a higher Commanding Officer, the US does not do that, one shows respect with a salute and it's returned as is proper, I was in NJROTC before the Army, there was no AJROTC where I lived at, I was an Officer.
 

JokerCPoC

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
629
And in that same oath you swore to obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed above you and that goes all the way to the Commander and Chief, POTUS.

Or did you forget that part of your oath.
https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html



And also, to remind you, the President also swore to uphold the Constitution as well.

https://www.presidentsusa.net/oathofoffice.html



It's not an either or thing brother.
I don't think you understand what swearing an Oath to a POTUS would be, the POTUS is not the US Constitution, saying the 2 are the same is conflation.

Swearing an Oath to a POTUS would be an Oath of Fealty or Loyalty, this is not done in the US.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I don't think you understand what swearing an Oath to a POTUS would be, the POTUS is not the US Constitution, saying the 2 are the same is conflation.

Swearing an Oath to a POTUS would be an Oath of Fealty or Loyalty, this is not done in the US.
You are misinterpreting my meaning. My meaning was that when you swore your oath of service, that you swore to defend the constitution and to follow the lawful orders of those officers appointed above you, and specifically to follow the orders of the president.
 

JokerCPoC

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
629
You are misinterpreting my meaning. My meaning was that when you swore your oath of service, that you swore to defend the constitution and to follow the lawful orders of those officers appointed above you, and specifically to follow the orders of the president.
Then We are talking about 2 different subjects, you are talking about service, I am not.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
That's Commander in Chief, on Jan 21st 2021 that could change, Nov 3rd 2020 can't get here fast enough. No the military does not swear an oath to a POTUS.
Sorry but you don't swear an Oath to a higher Commanding Officer, the US does not do that, one shows respect with a salute and it's returned as is proper, I was in NJROTC before the Army, there was no AJROTC where I lived at, I was an Officer.
Well, I retired as an NCO after 16 years of Active Duty in the US Army.
332nd M.I. Co. Army Security Agency
197th Mech Inf BDE (SEP)
2nd Inf Div
163rd MI BN
504th MI BDE
304th MI BN
305th MI BN

And early retirement because nobody needed RADAR Intercept Operators or Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewmen anymore. Since then I've just been doing contract work at Huachuca, Polk, Bragg, and in Iraq getting ready to retire for real, for good.
 

JokerCPoC

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
629
Well, I retired as an NCO after 16 years of Active Duty in the US Army.
332nd M.I. Co. Army Security Agency
197th Mech Inf BDE (SEP)
2nd Inf Div
163rd MI BN
504th MI BDE
304th MI BN
305th MI BN

And early retirement because nobody needed RADAR Intercept Operators or Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewmen anymore. Since then I've just been doing contract work at Huachuca, Polk, Bragg, and in Iraq getting ready to retire for real, for good.
Sounds like the reason My brother retired after 20 years in the US Navy w/an E9 rating and gold chevrons and hashmarks(good conduct He said, He never wore them as He just wanted to fit in). Diesel Engines were gone, so He got various stations on shore to fill out His 20yrs, now He lays at rest in Whittier CA since 2005, cancer got him.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
If we can't agree on objective reality, there's no point in discussing it further.
Give me a fucking break. Look at the graph YOU provided!
Poverty rate in 1965 - 15.2%
Poverty rate in 2017 - 12.3%
22 Trillion well spent? I'm sure some economists could make a graph showing that the poverty rate *may have been* higher without those expenditures but imaginary numbers don't interest me much.
I'm sure you'll say that in '64 the poverty rate was higher, and you'd be right. It was higher still in '63, '62, '61.....'50...

The poverty rate was dropping before the 22 trillion dollar war began. That 'war' did not accomplish fuck all.

There has never been a time in human history where there were no poor people. There are less now in the US and in the world thanks to capitalism. Poverty will never be erased, no matter how much money is thrown at it or how high of a value a society places on family.
Your belief that poverty creates crime is not without merit but it's more a correlation than a cause. In places like the US and other 'developed' countries, the meaning of poverty and how it's calculated have to change in order for that correlation to hold true. And they have.

Poverty should be pretty damn simple to calculate. Do you have reliable access to food/shelter/basic medical care/basic hygiene? If yes...you're not living in poverty.
Since most in the US have access to all of the above either of their own agency or through gov't programs.....very, very few Americans live in actual poverty. Yet, we have a crime rate that is not low by many metrics.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,735
The answer is in front of your face, it's the same answer that has always existed. People will do what they have to do. Nothing stops people from starting new businesses for themselves, and others. Nothing but themselves.

Not even that crippled up genius in a wheelchair predicted that people would stream themselves playing games on the internet and make money doing it. There are several companies starting up over the last couple of decades where people are recreating "lost trades". Custom craftsmen making straight razors and real leather belts and other goods because ..... despite being more costly, they're really nice products. Disposable has become just cheap, as cheap as cheap can get. Quality starts becoming the new frugal choice. People are using hydroponics to grow vegetables to sell at local markets, it must be having an impact because now there are Super Markets that are trying out growing their own right in the store.



https://www.fastcompany.com/3058155/at-this-supermarket-the-produce-section-grows-its-own-produce\
The idea that the market will fill in the gap is a fallacy. Nicknacks like custom made razors and belts is not going to solve the problem. It would be easier and better to go into your home and take your over priced razor blades and belt and sell it on Craigslist. Meanwhile Americans take 80% of the opioids in the world cause people are stressed over their loans and paying the rent. Get realistic here, as within the next 10 years a lot of jobs will be lost to automation. Right now the market is crumbing with a lack of sales and people taking loans. People are at max debt right now and can't afford to spend money.

After the 2008 recession people got any job they could. Rent went up, debt climbed, and their shitty job is still shitty. This is why in 2018 people didn't buy as much as usual and the stocks fell dramatically. 7 million people are 90 days late on their auto loan payments. BTW, that was 6.3 million about 2 years ago. It's clearly getting worse and we're about to hit another recession that not all the shitty jobs in the world can solve. There needs to be wealth redistribution, a Universal Basic Income.
 

RoxieToast

n00b
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
29
It's so annoying that these lawmakers seem so disconnected from reality and barely understand how the internet works and yet make laws that would require such radical changes. I mean one of them mentioned something like "Well then maybe youtube shouldn't exist" disregarding the fact that a lot of people actually make a living without infringing on any copyrights. Youtube is just one example, plenty of other sites will also be effected. I'm particularly concerned about twitch.tv because supposedly they just want to block EU users entirely which is ridiculous because a lot of streamers will abandon the platform. Oh and what about esports? I'm in the EU and suddenly I'm not allowed to watch some matches because they might have some copyrighted music? Ridiculous...
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Give me a fucking break. Look at the graph YOU provided!
Poverty rate in 1965 - 15.2%
Poverty rate in 2017 - 12.3%
22 Trillion well spent? I'm sure some economists could make a graph showing that the poverty rate *may have been* higher without those expenditures but imaginary numbers don't interest me much.
I'm sure you'll say that in '64 the poverty rate was higher, and you'd be right. It was higher still in '63, '62, '61.....'50...

The poverty rate was dropping before the 22 trillion dollar war began. That 'war' did not accomplish fuck all.
Two things:

1. The program started in 1964, where the poverty rate was 19%. Yes, it was higher previously, you mention 1950, where it was 22%. During the time periods you mentioned, correct me if I'm wrong, but the years immediately following the war on poverty saw the biggest drop in poverty ever during that time. 19% to 12% is a 7% drop, but if you consider how many people that affects who were already in poverty, that's a 36% drop, in other words, about 1 in every 3 people who were poor. Also noting that it never returned to the previous high is significant. Whether you consider it the primary cause or not, the reality is:

•For the first few years after the "war on poverty" was implemented, there was the biggest drop in the poverty rate than at any other time period since at least the 50s
•The poverty rate never returned to its previous highs since the programs were implemented.

Calling that "exactly nothing" is willful ignorance at best.


2. Asking if the money was well spent is a completely different question. I wasn't arguing it was money well spent, I was contesting your assertion that it's done exactly nothing. 1 in 3 people who were in poverty no longer being in poverty I don't consider "nothing" and I think it shows a lack of understanding to proclaim otherwise. I would agree more needs to be done. Again, if you look at social security, that has had a DRAMATIC difference in poverty for the elderly, moving from 50% to about 12% from when it started until now. Your original statement was implying anti-poverty programs like Social Security have done nothing, which is false by any metric you want to look at it. If anything, you're making the argument that "war on poverty" programs should be scrapped and replaced with programs more like social security, which has had a far more dramatic success rate. I don't disagree with that.

Poverty should be pretty damn simple to calculate. Do you have reliable access to food/shelter/basic medical care/basic hygiene? If yes...you're not living in poverty.
I agree.

Since most in the US have access to all of the above either of their own agency or through gov't programs.....very, very few Americans live in actual poverty. Yet, we have a crime rate that is not low by many metrics.
I think we may disagree on the "very very few" parts:
-About 5 million people in the USA qualify for homeless shelters and about 2.3 million people are evicted per year.
-About 40 million people in the USA can't afford basic health care (I would argue that's low balling it, since many insurance plans find ways not to cover expenses)
-Also about 40 million people are in food insecure households.
-About 63 million have unsafe drinking water.

The people who can't afford basic health care and are in food insecure households about matches the official poverty rate of 12% If you consider that very, very few, fine. In order to prove your point, you'd have to point to other countries with similar rates of poverty, but substantially lower crime rates (or countries with higher poverty rates, but lower crime).

Apparently the OECD thinks the United States is even higher for poverty, at 17%. You could argue they're not using good measurements, but I would guess they're using the same measurements for the other countries as well.
 
Last edited:

Biostud

n00b
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
62
Most people (me included) have not read the final paper, and tends to listen to those who argue against the law, based on what the commission proposed. Lots have changed the last two years, so before signing on to the "end of the internet" maybe read the paper....

Just a short recap of how the EU system works: Commission proposes a law -> European parliament revise the proposed law and together with the commission sends the final version for acceptance in the European Council (Ministers from each country). That is what has been finalized now, and we will still have to see if the European Council will accept the law in its current form.

At least read the reasoning and the Q&A in this link

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...approves-new-copyright-rules-for-the-internet

  • Internet platforms are liable for content that users upload
  • Some uploaded material, such as memes or GIFs, now specifically excluded from directive
  • Hyperlinks to news articles, accompanied by “individual words or very short extracts”, can be shared freely
  • Journalists must get a share of any copyright-related revenue obtained by their news publisher
  • Start-up platforms subject to lighter obligations
I think the intentions with the law is good, but how it will implemented will be interesting.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,735
People who are bad at managing money and making decisions will be bad at managing money and making decisions no matter what you throw at them.
A good deal of the economy revolves around people making bad financial decisions, otherwise how would credit card companies stay in business? But the point is currently people can't make more money and prices are going up, and lately in the news a lot of stores are closing down and firing people. I also feel that this move with Article 11 & 13 are a response to the economic down turn, as people are going to spend less money on things like news and entertainment, so this just extracts more money forcefully. I believe even Google's Stadia is a response to this economic down turn as gamers aren't going to be buying as many games in this economy. The new business model is to force people to pay, cause you'll have no choice.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,592
It's so annoying that these lawmakers seem so disconnected from reality and barely understand how the internet works and yet make laws that would require such radical changes. I mean one of them mentioned something like "Well then maybe youtube shouldn't exist" disregarding the fact that a lot of people actually make a living without infringing on any copyrights. Youtube is just one example, plenty of other sites will also be effected. I'm particularly concerned about twitch.tv because supposedly they just want to block EU users entirely which is ridiculous because a lot of streamers will abandon the platform. Oh and what about esports? I'm in the EU and suddenly I'm not allowed to watch some matches because they might have some copyrighted music? Ridiculous...
They're not disconnected, they're on the take.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
5
I guess my feeling is this:

States aren't sentient beings who suffer if policies hurt them, or benefit when policies work in their favor. People are. The states themselves are immaterial. Government policies should work in the favor of as many people as possible, and thus having some peoples votes carry a greater weight than others is an inherently unfair system.

I understand why our founding fathers created the system this way. They were addressing the concerns of smaller states from being dominated by larger states. It was intended to persuade the smaller states to join the union in a time before we had some sort of national identity like we have today. They really should have had this expire after a few generations as that national identity was established..

Having a minority of people who live in rural settings that don't reflect how some 85% of Americans live today have an outsized influence on our politics is just wrong. Sure, these minority populations need to be protected, just like every other minority, so their concerns aren't completely ignored by the majority, but that's why it takes significant super majorities to change the constitution.

As more and more people move to cities on the coast and abandon their rural heritage, this system just becomes more and more unfair. At some point it has to change. Today only 15% of Americans live in rural areas. When do we mix things up and address this imbalance? Or should these low population interior states continue to have two senators and three electoral votes no matter how small their populations become? What if there is only one guy left in Wyoming some day. Does he still get three electoral votes?

I'm just surprised large states like Texas and California haven't gotten pissed off already and split into 3-4 smaller states each in order to gain a more representative level of influence.

No, but they are autonomous governments. The US is a federal system - that is a federation of governments, and ensures representation of said governments rather than the populations therein. Traditionally, in a federated system, you expect popular voting at a municipal or state level, not at the federal level, which is expected to function primarily as a regulatory body for the states incorporated into it, as it was in the US before various acts occurred to increase the power of the federal government.

Ultimately, California has been trying to split into two states for a while now, though it has been blocked by those from the big cities. North California has had several initiatives to split off because of the disagreements in culture and regulations between the largely rural north counties, and the largely urban south.

While not as many people live in rural states as in urbanized states, it is important to remember the needs of day to day life are different between whether you live in an urban environment or a rural one, and your priorities will be different by extension.

Having a government that doesn't represent your needs and is dominated by a group who don't consider your priorities of any concern, or may be openly hostile to them, tends to breed resentment.

This is why the electoral college and the senate are things. Because we are a collection of groups, made up of individual voters with different needs, not a homogeneous entity.
 

TheCommander

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
2,999
A good deal of the economy revolves around people making bad financial decisions, otherwise how would credit card companies stay in business? But the point is currently people can't make more money and prices are going up, and lately in the news a lot of stores are closing down and firing people. I also feel that this move with Article 11 & 13 are a response to the economic down turn, as people are going to spend less money on things like news and entertainment, so this just extracts more money forcefully. I believe even Google's Stadia is a response to this economic down turn as gamers aren't going to be buying as many games in this economy. The new business model is to force people to pay, cause you'll have no choice.
I think it is difficult to do change anything the present. Tech is changing extremely quickly. It is true that if *everything* becomes automated, you will need to change how the economy works. People will need to have income of some sort to purchase things otherwise if there is no demand for whatever products, businesses will go broke. I guess if 3d printing keeps improving to the point where you can 3d print anything you want without cost and everyone gets to have one, there will be no need for income. Anyway, those are just random thoughts and I think it is pretty hard to predict what the end result will be for how the economy works.

I do disagree with universal basic income though and don't think it is the solution to poverty. In general, I don't think more government in our lives is a good idea and I prefer for people being less reliant on government. From personal experience coming from a poor area, I see it more of a "the way you are raised" problem. You can give people money and some will foolishly blow it away and then there are those who refuse to do any kind of work. Point is some people are their own greatest enemy. As for prices being raised on goods, well.. I haven't really thought about what can be done. Obviously you have minimum wage for those that work minimum wage jobs but then there is everyone else and rising prices affect everyone. I guess its up to businesses to raise salaries but that seems to be a whole different topic.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Sounds like the reason My brother retired after 20 years in the US Navy w/an E9 rating and gold chevrons and hashmarks(good conduct He said, He never wore them as He just wanted to fit in). Diesel Engines were gone, so He got various stations on shore to fill out His 20yrs, now He lays at rest in Whittier CA since 2005, cancer got him.
Hope he went without regrets.

A man can go happy knowing his life was worth something and that he's left no unfinished business behind.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The idea that the market will fill in the gap is a fallacy. Nicknacks like custom made razors and belts is not going to solve the problem. It would be easier and better to go into your home and take your over priced razor blades and belt and sell it on Craigslist. Meanwhile Americans take 80% of the opioids in the world cause people are stressed over their loans and paying the rent. Get realistic here, as within the next 10 years a lot of jobs will be lost to automation. Right now the market is crumbing with a lack of sales and people taking loans. People are at max debt right now and can't afford to spend money.

After the 2008 recession people got any job they could. Rent went up, debt climbed, and their shitty job is still shitty. This is why in 2018 people didn't buy as much as usual and the stocks fell dramatically. 7 million people are 90 days late on their auto loan payments. BTW, that was 6.3 million about 2 years ago. It's clearly getting worse and we're about to hit another recession that not all the shitty jobs in the world can solve. There needs to be wealth redistribution, a Universal Basic Income.

You may have a pretty solid read on the state of things, but please understand, I don't care "why" anyone takes opioids or other drugs that fuck up their lives. I have no heart for them. I will not coddle people for being weak and refusing to face their troubles positively.

When it comes to people fucking themselves over, I am a zero pity zone.

What I also think is that you are ignoring centuries of human history. This isn't the first time and it sure won't be the last time that human engineering has created a situation like this one. Humanity adjusts and somehow always thrives.

I challenge you to find a single point in history in which a technological revolution permanently retarded the upward drive of human endeavor. It can have short term effects that are rough on some people, but in the end, we adjust and move forward.

Those that are ahead of the game will do great, those quick to adjust will be fine. But those who hide their heads in the sand ignoring the changes around them, hiding, escaping, they will suffer. Sucks to be them, but they won't be the first and they won't be the last.
 
Last edited:
Top