LAWLESS PRESIDENT - bypasses Congress signs ACTA

Thanks for alerting me to his, i did not know about it.  Too bad for you it was just another excuse to bash Obama ... because of that i almost missed it.

Yep. an Obamafish will get YOU every time! Whishhhhhhh... there goes your mind!

You misunderstand, my friend.  Perhaps you misunderstand intentionally, i don't accuse, i simply do not know.  Here it is again ... read my words carefully ... please!   I almost missed this just because you made it about Obama .... that is because the things you write which just rag on Obama, I have, quite intentionally, learned to ignore.

For my part I simply do not like a president who thinks he is a one-man government & is likely to bypass Congress if he can get away with it. There is a good balance of power with the Congress, President & Judiciary .  Let's keep it that way regardless .

The whole thingy about intellectual & artistic copyright in the electronic (Internet) age needs to be discussed in the open, like with Congress & in the press & all sides represented.  Treaties are the form of law codifying agreements between soverign nations. Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Anything else can be broken.

Not acknowledging copyright & intellectual property will severely restrict international commerce & the quality of stuff in the worlds of art, music & video. The Internet blurs the borders between countries & sovereign entities.  On the other hand there is free speech, press & by extention most media.  I would also add something reiterating the right of soverign countries to keep their military & state secrets free from espionage to whatever treaties signed.

Back about ACTA ...

i asked what i think the pertinent questions  of Aaron Swartz on Facebook here.   He provided the link to the appropriate discussion here ...

To answer your question: my take is that it is about cooperation with foreign governments to protect Intellectual property.  That said, it might not be a good idea to cooperate with foreign government when it may end up restraining freedom on the Internet.  

I think there is a fundamental paradox (or contradiction) between staking out "Intellecual Property" and  ensuring "Freedom on the Internet".  These things will always be fighting ... yin and yang.  To formulate actions i think it is necessary to acknowledge that basic contradiction.  Me i tend to side more with the latter force and don't care that much about the former one.  People who think they have more of the former  are obviously going to be fighting on that side.  Do we want our government to be protecting private property in international trade ... well why not ... does international trade take place on the Internet ... yes it certainly does ... why should it be exempt?  ... that is an legitimate question indeed. 

Why don't you watch O'reilly or Hannity & find out if you are that curious. I am certain that the 1st amendment is going to prevail anyway.

i suspect it will hear about it, if there there actually is some reaction, without my having to seek it out.  What won't come to me so easily, however, is the knowledge of "What the Republicans in Arizona were thinking?". 

Well good for you .   

I'm actually more interested in the reactions of right leaning media pundits ... the O'Rilleys and the Hannities ,and the  Michelle Malkins and the what's their name blond girls ... not to mention the, almost mandatory, ruling of SCOUTS.  But I suppose they will react pretty much the same as you have (if they react at all) ... so that leaves me with ... what were the Republicans in Arizona thinking?

If you left the "right" out of there I would say that government is assailing free speech & would agree to such a stipulation.  Otherwise you are just a bitch of the left & of no interest!

(lovingly - of course)