Honest & thought provoking.......*Tips hat.
In reply to this comment by Deano:
There is the problem of overlap leading to problems of posts getting tagged with one or other or both. And then you start to run into the 7 channel limit.

I vote No because in this case we'd have absolutely, in theory, no end to the amount of videos in the Win channel. A great bit of stand-up? Someone juggling expertly? One of those bullied kids striking his tormentor? A smart rebuttal?

It's just potentially too wide a channel that's very, very subjective. Your initial reasoning seems fine but such a move would lead to a bit of a mess in my opinion.

>> ^Deano:

There is the problem of overlap leading to problems of posts getting tagged with one or other or both. And then you start to run into the 7 channel limit.
I vote No because in this case we'd have absolutely, in theory, no end to the amount of videos in the Win channel. A great bit of stand-up? Someone juggling expertly? One of those bullied kids striking his tormentor? A smart rebuttal?
It's just potentially too wide a channel that's very, very subjective. Your initial reasoning seems fine but such a move would lead to a bit of a mess in my opinion.


I can't believe I'm upvoting a "no" vote, but you've raised one or two points I didn't think of & put them forward in a simple & constructive manner.

^Thumbs up^ to ya.

There is the problem of overlap leading to problems of posts getting tagged with one or other or both. And then you start to run into the 7 channel limit.

I vote No because in this case we'd have absolutely, in theory, no end to the amount of videos in the Win channel. A great bit of stand-up? Someone juggling expertly? One of those bullied kids striking his tormentor? A smart rebuttal?

It's just potentially too wide a channel that's very, very subjective. Your initial reasoning seems fine but such a move would lead to a bit of a mess in my opinion.

One minor quibble, that being the debt ceiling. Of course Santorum voted for the debt ceiling. So did every other politician beyond the few they *allowed* to vote no because if we hadn't raised the ceiling the country as we know it would have dissolved into who knows what mess.

This is a list of all the US Senators and their stance concerning PIPA. Currently, there are 38 in support, 19 opposed, 7 leaning toward no, and 36 undecided. If you click a senator's name you can see their information, including the phone number of their office that you can call and voice your opinion. These offices WILL have someone answering the phones so I called both of my senators to tell them to vote no and was done in less than one minute.

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call

>> ^G-bar:

Would it be fair to vote NO just to be able in the long run to watch the U.S.A go from worse to worst and dwindle slowly into the pages of crappy history?




It would be fair to vote NO if you think SOPA is a good bill that should exist and isn't worth fighting against.

Would it be fair to vote NO just to be able in the long run to watch the U.S.A go from worse to worst and dwindle slowly into the pages of crappy history?

>> ^siftbot:

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No - I find the conversation additions invaluable.
LOL

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No - I find the conversation additions invaluable.

LOL

To whoever voted no: You can use channels to suppress content as well as to seek it out, what were you thinking?

Thanks to this vote, Ohioan taxpayers are now BACK on the hook for 66 billion dollars in government union pensions. That's JUST the pensions, nothing else.

Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class.

This is how the people who control the emotional state of left-wingers fool you.

"We're losing a hand, but that's OK, because the Rich Guy is losing an arm!"







>> ^jcf79:

You don't get this type of turnout with this type of a percentage voting "no" on an issue with a failure to understand simple text (sorry you couldn't understand it) And I'm not happy, by the way, if that makes you feel better. We won this fight, but I'm sure that Kucinich has plan B in effect to make the working class feel the hurt, however... Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class. We know struggle, we know sacrifice, we are the 99% and we have shown that we can prevail.
>> ^quantumushroom:
I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.
I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.
>> ^jcf79:
Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

You don't get this type of turnout with this type of a percentage voting "no" on an issue with a failure to understand simple text (sorry you couldn't understand it) And I'm not happy, by the way, if that makes you feel better. We won this fight, but I'm sure that Kucinich has plan B in effect to make the working class feel the hurt, however... Times will be tough, but it will be tougher on those who choose to take advantage of the working class. We know struggle, we know sacrifice, we are the 99% and we have shown that we can prevail.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I read the link. It explains NOTHING of what the amendment does or does not do.
I lost nothing, you're the one who got screwed; at least you're happy.
>> ^jcf79:
Dear Quantum Mushroom, as an Ohioan who votes and knew the issues fully going into the election, and who voted against SB5 aka issue 2 (Also, here's a link to the "tricky" wording of the bill. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2011/2-language.pdf I was glad I could take a few weeks to fully comprehend the wording, especially the part that read "A 'yes" vote means you approve of the law. A 'no' vote means you reject the law" I mean, what does "yes" and "no" reaaaallly mean here. Please, QM, if you could help straighten this out you'd be doing a great service to us all. Anyways...) I guess what I really want to say is.... Nyah nyah nyah We win, you lose. Pffffffffff.

you took a part of what I said out of context to then make your point ( I'm not quite sure what your point is ).
to me it comes across as you stating that popular politicians get voted , which is self explanatory and not a counter argument to what I said.

My point didn't dispute that it has always been about getting the most votes. but rather one would hope its about getting the most votes by being good and doing the right thing (ie things that benefit the people that vote the person in) . not by being the person that can best lie and manipulate the system for personal gain.



>> ^Payback:

>> ^westy:
lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .

Name one society or historical epoch where this is not the case. Popularity = votes. No exceptions.

Bush v Gore

Besides, we don't have a popular vote. We have the electoral college.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^westy:
lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .

Name one society or historical epoch where this is not the case. Popularity = votes. No exceptions.

>> ^westy:

lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .


Name one society or historical epoch where this is not the case. Popularity = votes. No exceptions.