GOP truly has become a parody of themselves

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 6, 2012
2,757
1,059
743
Edmond
so you want to go after MY hypothetical and NOT what the GOP is ACTUALLY doing.

I posed a simple what if theory....and THAT is what you have an issue with....something that rattled around in my brain for about 5 secs before I typed it.

LOL.

Not the actual unconstitutional legislation a GOP Senator ACTUALLY FILED or the fact the GOP is declaring open season on any company THEY define as "woke" and their Constitutional rights be damned..

So it would be very bad for the Dems to do my Hypothetical, but No comment on the GOP ACTUALLY doing it right at this very second.
Did I say what Hawley is doing was constitutional? No, It will clearly be tested. Disney can handle themselves.

Besides, most of these tweets will go nowhere and its just one of those things that politicians use to pander to their base.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
36,737
10,829
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Did I say what Hawley is doing was constitutional? No, It will clearly be tested. Disney can handle themselves.
Yes, lord forbid you actually call out a politician for introducing clearly unconstitutional legislation in a blatant attempt to attack a US business because they dared held an opinion that was different from your own.

I mean clearly that is what the GOP is all about, supports, ,and apparently is willing to allow to carry on without impunity. DeSantis/Hawley 2024 Woot

But hey, The GOP is business friendly right! Small Govt and Big Business!! What message have Hawley and DeSantis sent to Big Business in the US

I can tell you. The message they have CLEARLY sent is that the GOP is going to come for your business if you speak out against legislation they support and they will do it as the State and Federal level....constitutionality Be Damned.
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,757
1,059
743
Edmond
Yes, lord forbid you actually call out a politician for introducing clearly unconstitutional legislation in a blatant attempt to attack a US business because they dared held an opinion that was different from your own.

I mean clearly that is what the GOP is all about, supports, ,and apparently is willing to allow to carry on without impunity. DeSantis/Hawley 2024 Woot

But hey, The GOP is business friendly right! Small Govt and Big Business!! What message have Hawley and DeSantis sent to Big Business in the US

I can tell you. The message they have CLEARLY sent is that the GOP is going to come for your business if you speak out against legislation they support and they will do it as the State and Federal level....constitutionality Be Damned.
I'm a Libertarian in Oklahoma. The reedy creek issue is a Florida issue that is national headlines. The people of our Congress do stuff all the time that you and I never hear about.
 
Nov 8, 2007
3,687
1,227
1,743
Bartlesville
I think it is pretty clear that Binman doesn't support stripping anyone of their first amendment rights. His question was purely hypothetical. He is asking what happens when a democrat decides that Chic-Fil-A doesn't deserve to hold copyrights/patents any more because they have a religious standpoint. And I think that is a valid question.

We can say "Oh, Hawley is just flexing for his base"...but writing things like this off because it "likely isn't going anywhere" is dangerous. And it sets a precedent for the next wave of jack-wagons to come along and strip the IP from a company that you might like. If we play the odds of "likely not going anywhere" and say nothing, eventually it will go somewhere.
 
Oct 7, 2008
1,715
419
1,713
I think it is pretty clear that Binman doesn't support stripping anyone of their first amendment rights. His question was purely hypothetical. He is asking what happens when a democrat decides that Chic-Fil-A doesn't deserve to hold copyrights/patents any more because they have a religious standpoint. And I think that is a valid question.

We can say "Oh, Hawley is just flexing for his base"...but writing things like this off because it "likely isn't going anywhere" is dangerous. And it sets a precedent for the next wave of jack-wagons to come along and strip the IP from a company that you might like. If we play the odds of "likely not going anywhere" and say nothing, eventually it will go somewhere.
It also confirms the only ethos his/the MAGA base has is "Do unto Dems that which I would cry tyranny if done unto me." Not that we didn't already know that before..
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
8,004
3,291
1,743
47
DFW
I think it is pretty clear that Binman doesn't support stripping anyone of their first amendment rights. His question was purely hypothetical. He is asking what happens when a democrat decides that Chic-Fil-A doesn't deserve to hold copyrights/patents any more because they have a religious standpoint. And I think that is a valid question.

We can say "Oh, Hawley is just flexing for his base"...but writing things like this off because it "likely isn't going anywhere" is dangerous. And it sets a precedent for the next wave of jack-wagons to come along and strip the IP from a company that you might like. If we play the odds of "likely not going anywhere" and say nothing, eventually it will go somewhere.
Thanks for dumbing it down to a 7th grade level, but we may need the board book version for folks in here. Otherwise, well done!
 
Sep 6, 2012
2,757
1,059
743
Edmond
Yes, lord forbid you actually call out a politician for introducing clearly unconstitutional legislation in a blatant attempt to attack a US business because they dared held an opinion that was different from your own.

I mean clearly that is what the GOP is all about, supports, ,and apparently is willing to allow to carry on without impunity. DeSantis/Hawley 2024 Woot

But hey, The GOP is business friendly right! Small Govt and Big Business!! What message have Hawley and DeSantis sent to Big Business in the US

I can tell you. The message they have CLEARLY sent is that the GOP is going to come for your business if you speak out against legislation they support and they will do it as the State and Federal level....constitutionality Be Damned.
Please tell me where what Hawley did was Unconstitutional? I have no idea. I live in Oklahoma and cannot vote for or against Hawley. Do you live in MO? If so, vote against him.
I think it is pretty clear that Binman doesn't support stripping anyone of their first amendment rights. His question was purely hypothetical. He is asking what happens when a democrat decides that Chic-Fil-A doesn't deserve to hold copyrights/patents any more because they have a religious standpoint. And I think that is a valid question.

We can say "Oh, Hawley is just flexing for his base"...but writing things like this off because it "likely isn't going anywhere" is dangerous. And it sets a precedent for the next wave of jack-wagons to come along and strip the IP from a company that you might like. If we play the odds of "likely not going anywhere" and say nothing, eventually it will go somewhere.
Hypothetical or not. Religion is always tested and was a horrible example.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
36,737
10,829
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Please tell me where what Hawley did was Unconstitutional? I have no idea. I live in Oklahoma and cannot vote for or against Hawley. Do you live in MO? If so, vote against him.
agreed my Religion context was a bad hypothetical, but lets worry about what is REALLY and TRULY and ACTUALLY happening.

I've increased the font on a particular press release Hawley himself put out today about this....so the GOP is now calling for and end to Govt concessions to Big Business???.....Isn't this THE Oklahoma playbook??? Give Big Business Govt Concessions and Tax Breaks until it is attractive for them to move their business to Oklahoma????

I wonder if anyone on this board would have a Different opinion of Hawley if we replaced the word Disney in all his context with "Big Oil" or "Big Energy"

I also highlighted and changed the color of the part that is Unconstitutional

In a press release announcing the legislation on Tuesday, Hawley said that Disney had benefited from “unnecessarily long copyright monopolies,” and that it is time to end “the age of Republican handouts to Big Business.”
“Thanks to special copyright protections from Congress, woke corporations like Disney have earned billions while increasingly pandering to woke activists,” said Hawley, who once clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s time to take away Disney’s special privileges and open up a new era of creativity and innovation.”
The retroactive provision of the bill applies to any entertainment company with a market capitalization above $150 billion. Disney’s market cap is $196 billion.
In 1998, Disney lobbied heavily for the extension of copyright for works made for hire, such that critics dubbed the bill the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. The character first appeared in “Steamboat Willie” in 1928, and was set to enter the public domain in 2003. The act extended the term from 75 years to 95 years. The character — at least, the original black-and-white version — is now set to lose copyright protection on Jan. 1, 2024. (Disney would still retain copyright to later versions of the mouse.) There is no indication that Congress is interested in further extending copyright at this point.
Hawley’s bill would impose a 56-year term on all of Disney’s copyrights retroactively. Prof. Tyler Ochoa, an intellectual property expert at the Santa Clara University School of Law, agreed with Goldstein that that is likely unconstitutional.
“The Supreme Court has held that Congress can extend the term,” Ochoa said. “But if you try to take the term away, that is almost certainly a taking of property.”
The Copyright Act of 1909 set an initial copyright term of 28 years, with an option for a renewal of another 28 years. In 1976, Congress extended the term to the life of the author plus 50 years, later extended to 70 years. That provision is necessary to participate in the Berne Convention — the international treaty on copyrights. If Congress were to go back to a 56-year maximum, it would violate the treaty, potentially incurring monetary penalties or trade sanctions.



Restricting copyrights to 56 years would also likely draw opposition from every corner of the creative world — not just from Disney and other entertainment companies, but from authors, composers, songwriters, and many others.
“Copyright contributes $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy and employs 5.7 million Americans,” said Keith Kupferschmid, CEO of the Copyright Alliance, which represents copyright holders in Washington, D.C. “This legislation would harm those millions of everyday Americans in all 50 states who rely on copyright for their livelihoods in creative industries largely dominated by independent and small businesses.”
 
Last edited:
Sep 6, 2012
2,757
1,059
743
Edmond
You're getting into stuff that I have little to no knowledge about - Treaties.

agreed my Religion context was a bad hypothetical, but lets worry about what is REALLY and TRULY and ACTUALLY happening.

I've increased the font on a particular press release Hawley himself put out today about this....so the GOP is now calling for and end to Govt concessions to Big Business???.....Isn't this THE Oklahoma playbook??? Give Big Business Govt Concessions and Tax Breaks until it is attractive for them to move their business to Oklahoma????

I wonder if anyone on this board would have a Different opinion of Hawley if we replaced the word Disney in all his context with "Big Oil" or "Big Energy"
I would love an even playing field, but I am also not ignorant of the fact if you have a big business in your locale. You will also have a lot of vendors in the locale to support that big business. Just like Disney, they have vendors, and I am one of them. It's a double edged sword.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,698
20,994
1,743
Please tell me where what Hawley did was Unconstitutional? I have no idea. I live in Oklahoma and cannot vote for or against Hawley. Do you live in MO? If so, vote against him.
Congress granted a property right in the form of a copyright extension. Right or wrong, once they grant that property right, it can't be taken away from Disney without proper compensation and can't be taken away for speech that the Government is looking to censor or convince Disney not to make.

One is a violation of the takings clause, the other is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The legislation that Hawley proposed is pretty clearly both.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
6,783
2,984
743
36
tractor
Did I say what Hawley is doing was constitutional? No, It will clearly be tested. Disney can handle themselves.

Besides, most of these tweets will go nowhere and its just one of those things that politicians use to pander to their base.
If that's true somebody better start an investigation on Branson
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
36,737
10,829
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
Several of these members have been arrested and plead guilty to seditious activity

A politician who helped arranged buses for transportation on the day of and marched with them is currently leading the GOP vote getting in PA State Senate race.

https://twitter.com/DashaBurns/status/1526184174566113285

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1525969036969795584
 

RxCowboy

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,115
41,753
1,743
Closer to Stillwater today than I was last year
@RxCowboy I figure you’ll appreciate this one View attachment 95677
Foundational principles. There was a time when both parties had foundational principles. JFK had foundational principles, bedrock principles on which his policies were built. Both parties wanted essentially the same thing, the good of the country and the general good of the people but disagreed on how to achieve it. Now they just want to stay in power. It's "I'm for what you're against, and I'm against what you're for" from both parties. I registered as a Republican just before voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980. When I applied for my Oklahoma driver's license I registered as a Libertarian. I disagree with some of their whacko crap like deregulate all of healthcare and use tort to correct errors (tort cannot return the dead to life). But at least they have principles.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
31,582
14,445
1,743
Cozy's Bar
Foundational principles. There was a time when both parties had foundational principles. JFK had foundational principles, bedrock principles on which his policies were built. Both parties wanted essentially the same thing, the good of the country and the general good of the people but disagreed on how to achieve it. Now they just want to stay in power. It's "I'm for what you're against, and I'm against what you're for" from both parties. I registered as a Republican just before voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980. When I applied for my Oklahoma driver's license I registered as a Libertarian. I disagree with some of their whacko crap like deregulate all of healthcare and use tort to correct errors (tort cannot return the dead to life). But at least they have principles.
Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism dude, but at least its an ethos.