I, frankly, would be amazed that someone would spend the cash and time to get an illegal copy of Office working under Wine. The only people running Office under Wine are people who absolutely cannot run OpenOffice.
I have a legal copy of Office 2003 (Actually, two, thanks to MS being weird and mailing me a free copy.), and I not only don't have it installed under Linux, I don't have it in Windows either.
Why? Openoffice works fine for what I need. I'm aware some people need MS Office, but people who need it usually can afford the thing. Warez kiddies don't need it, and thus are unlikely to bother with it on Wine, especially since you have to purchase Crossover Office. (Of course, they could just pirate that...)
What you fools seem to forget is that it is possible for me to break into your house and use your stuff legally. And I'm not just talking about search warrants.
For example, if I am a police officer, and follow a fleeing suspect into your house.
Or if I am running from someone trying to kill me, it is legal for me to commit lesser crimes to escape, including breaking and entering and trespassing.
Or if my car has crashed into your house. Not an example you'd want, but it's certainly illegal to electricute me as I'm trying to walk out of your house, or the EMS team as they're coming in, even if I've crashed through your wall.
No kidding. I don't know in what universe throwing someone in with a bunch of criminals is supposed to make them stop being a criminal. Prison is about the most warped enviroment possible. Some people manage to reject the place and become members of society agian, but for every one of those, there are who get sucked into gangs and prison life, making connections for when they get out.
I'd rather see criminals completely forbidden from socializing with any other criminals whatsoever. Which is obviously an absurd preposition in prison, but it's what I'd like. People serving time could not interact with anyone serving time.
And, like you, I'd like to see the non-violent ones living in small apartments, with few amenities. Think prison cells you can leave, except you have to cook your own food. (Okay, think dorm rooms.) You have a TV, but all you can watch is non-fiction. You're not allowed to eat out, unless you have a job that requires it, you're not allowed to see a movie, you will get a small allowance, and you will be told where you can spend it. You will have a schedule. You should have a job, and the money will be saved for you when you get out. These restrictions will slowly be relaxed over time, until the GPS is taken off, you get all your money, and you either have to pay rent or move somewhere else.
The violent ones are a different matter, and I don't divide those the way everyone else does.If you're a serial killer or serial rapists or some other sort of sociopath...well, we should just get an island for those idiots and throw them there, and airdrop some food every week.
If you're someone who coldly decided to kill someone because it benefited you, well, you're never going to be unwatched. Tough. You think benefit to you is worth people, and are extremely dangerous. This includes 'thugs for hire'.
If you're someone who killed someone in the heat of the moment or because a robbery went south...well, we'll see if you're fixable.
It's not just that blackmarkets attract unsavory characters. Athough it is nice for them to work somewhere they won't talk to police.
Blackmarkets have a lot more crime against the people working in the market mainly because they have no one to complain to about law-breaking activities.
Oh, yeah, you caught me. The media sure went easy on Clinton.
Oh, no they didn't, and five pretend softball questions doesn't prove anything. For one thing, the only actual softball questions was by Sarah McClendon. Sarah McClendon. She probably is, indeed, a poster child for loose credentialing process, as the article claims. But not because she asked easy questions or was left leaning, but because she liked to yell random accusations at presidents, including Clinton.
She's the one who started asking Clinton about drug operations being run out of Mena, Arkansas in January 2001 which was a rather crackpot theory, (Instead of normal questions to outgoing presidents, like the transitition to Bush's presidency, or, hell, Florida election issues.) and that's just something I can find in ten seconds of googling. She wasn't a friend of the administation...any administation. She asked completely oddball questions, and, apparently one of them was completely opposite her usually oddball direction. Many of them were about lunatic things, like the rather infamous time she asked Clinton why he didn't do anything about UFOs.
The only reason she was still there was historical and the fact that, once in a while, she asked a 'crackpot question' that actually turned out true. She was like the press room's Drudge Report.
The other questions are not a proof of anything except that a wide variety of questions get asked. It's basically 'there were more important issues existing at the time', but, as I would expect from the National Review, it does absolutely no research into whether or not those questions had already been asked. (Or quite likely, did the research, and didn't print it, because they had been asked.) Asking the president something over and over in a press conference is not incredibly useful, especially if he gave a canned reply the first time.
Well, except for the rape question, which was asked twice. Asking the president twice about rape and being deferred to his lawyer both times doesn't seem, to me, incredibly like 'avoiding the issue' as the article claims, at least not by anyone but the president.
Now for the Plame leak:
He asked the question: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that? in an interview with Wilson.
According to the Washington Post, only they had a copy at the time he conducted the interview. Now, the memo's existence was common knowledge, but he appeared to demonstrated knowledge of the contents.
And in fact, he admitted he had the memo at that time in the interview with Wolf Blitzer less than a week ago. Blows your hold 'he read the newspaper' theory away, doesn't it?
So the question now arises: Did he get access to the memo because the Post is leaky? Or did he get access because it was independantly leaked to him?
And that's all I said. That was part of the the reason he was 'uncovered' by the blogs, because he was talking about having seen a memo that, according to the Post, only they had.
And I have no idea which it is. I suspect it's just the first, and the FBI seems to think so also.
But, you like to make up positions for me to hold, so I'm sure you've made up one where I've already tried him for treason. I don't think he did anything that was the slightest bit illegal, and I don't think that was obvious at all when the question was asked 'Hey, who is this guy, anyway?', which apparently no one should ever ask. It looked like he could be part of the leak.
As for your stupid assertation that enough people knew who he was: That's not that I said. I said to be a pen name, you have to have your real name known. That's what a 'pen name' is. Otherwise it's just a pseudonym, a fake name. Real journa
Hey, moron...a pen name is the name that everyone knows you write under. No one knew who Gannon was.
As for 'discrediting'...damn right. He managed to get into the press corps and lobbied softball questions, some of them without any factual basis. (For example, he once treated a Rush Limbaugh joke as if it were real. That is, he asked a question based off it in the press room.) Someone asked who the hell the goofball was, and it turns out that no one knew.
Now you can argue that anyone should be able to get in there if they want, and, hell, I'm with you on that...but they can't. Or, at least, not usually.
As for the Plume leak...he knew the contents of the memo that was leaked before almost anyone else knew them, and this has gotten the government interested. I didn't say he was guilty of anything, in fact, I explicitly said he wasn't, but you like quoting out of context. But it certainly make him a legitmate target for investigation, especially when no one knows how the hell he really is. Um, duh.
As for the marriage thing...claiming that every society throughout history has defined marriage as something is a fucking sematic game.
No. All patents are supposed to be implimentable from the patent information by itself. Patents are not secret...if you patent something, everyone is supposed to know how to do it, they're just supposed to be unable to do it.
By that logic, people who show up talking how this is a nice shop, shame if it burned down or something, maybe you'd like to pay for fire insurance, are not committing extortion. They are.
Gates isn't, because what he's threatening to do is legal, not because of how he made the threat.
Blackmail is the form of extortion that treatens someone with exposure of fact(s), true or not. This is not blackmail, unless there's something we don't know. This is a different kind of extortion, where someone is threatened with something besides that.
And it's probably not legally extortion, either, because the action threated is not revealing information or an illegal action or a misuse of a position, but, trust me, everyone here understands hyperbole. They just don't understand using the wrong damn word. It'd be like talking about Gates 'kidnapping' the jobs or 'robbing' the government.
What makes Talon News not a real news service while al-Jazeera is a real news service?
First clue: Fake names.
And I didn't say that al-Jazeera was a real news service. Again, you're just making up stuff and ascribing it to me.
And, as far as I can tell, al-Jazeera is not in the briefing room. Considering we bombed their building in 2003, having them in the briefing room in 2002 would be a bit crazy. But, hey, apparently you can just make shit up and don't need to cite it or anything.
But, hey, it's not my job to answer why the White House is apparently opening the door to everyone carrying a notebook.
That's a lie.
Did you read the discovery? It's right there on the Daily Kos, out in the open. People were looking up 'Gannon's address by searching the whois records, and suddenly went 'What the hell are these domain names doing here?'.
I'm not even going to respond to this topic anymore until you can tell me the name of the person who first posted the list of domains. (The list that, I repeat, was the only was anyone figured out who Gannon was.) Until then, I will assume you didn't even read the discovery, and are therefore just repeating what others have said.
Or is it suddenly off limits to even wonder who people in the briefing room are? Especially when they've been named in connection to the Plame CIA leak? (Not that I'm saying he's guilty of any wrong-doing at all, just that it's perfectly valid to go 'Who is that guy?'.)
More Nazi propaganda shit. You're more interested in muddling the meanings of universally understood words than you are in actually having a conversation. You're more interested in weaving little webs of lies than you are in communicating.
Um...he's the one who made the assertation. No non-English speaking country defined 'marriage' as anything, as that is an English word. As that makes the translation rather important, I do not feel that pointing out his translation is screwy is 'Nazi propanda shit'.
I should have given an example of what I mean by the marriage thing. So here it is:
Let's assume we live in a country where everyone sits on stools. We call these 'demels'.
Some people would like to allow manufacturers to put backs on demels, and others claim that is immoral, and, to bolster this claim, say that 'Every country has defined a demel as a flat surface to sit on about two feet in the air, with no back'.
So, is this true, we wonder? We drive due west into our country-next-door, America, and ask them 'What do you define a *we quickly page through our translation dictionary* 'stool' as?'
And they tell us that, of course a stool does not have a back. The anti-back people are vindicated.
Except, of course they aren't. That's crazy. Americans sit on chairs, and see no problems with backs. Americans just don't call them stools, and someone decided the correct translation of 'demel' was 'stool', so Americans don't have backs on their 'demels'.
And it's not just a translation issue, it's a cultural ones. People who study any historical society call 'a legal binding between a man and a woman to produce children' marriage because that's what we call it. But, in reality, 'marriage' includes a lot of different things, and quite a lot of those things were available to people of the same sex in various societies throughout history. (Including, like I said about the native americans, the ability to produce children, although that was obviously faked and everyone knew it.)
In fact, I'd wager that everything that goes along with marriage, be it 'love', 'security', 'status', 'money sharing', 'children', etc, have, at one time or another, be available to people of the same sex.
I shouldn't even respond to this, because you keep making up positions and abscribing them to me. I have never under any circumstances said that Talon News can't publish whatever the fuck they want to publish.
However, like I said, they aren't a real news service. Just like I am not a real news service. All that means is that the government shouldn't be giving them a fucking press pass to the Whitehouse, just like it should not give me one.
Now, we can argue over exactly where something becomes a real news service, but I'm not playing that game. Congress, when he tried to get a press pass there, quite rightly realized it wasn't a new service, and failed to issue them one.
This, of course, doesn't mean they can't watch the press room on C-SPAN. Hell, as they are working for people with close ties to the administation, they could probably get a personal interview with the president.
However, the rule is, to be invited in the press room, you have to be a member of the press. That's been the rule since there was a press room.
And trying to make him out to be a member of the press makes the whole situtation worse. The press has standards and rules they hold themselves to, witness the recent CBS flap where they failed to follow said standards. Do you really want 'Talon News' held up to the standards CBS or even Fox News is held to? Because it would fail horribly.
And you can claim al-Jazeera isn't a news service when they get a press pass.
As for the sex issue: You keep saying false information. If you don't want it to be an issue, stop lying about it.
For your information, though, you may want to read why that information was discovered, over on te Daily Kos. It was discovered because no one knew who the hell 'Gannon' was and why he was allowed in the press room. The way he was tracked down was through the addresses listed in whois on the domains he owned. It wasn't 'let's go look up dirt on this guy', it was 'You know, this guy in the press room lobbing softball questions appears to inexplicably be operating under an alias. Who is he? Let's find out everything we can about 'Gannon' so we can track down who he really is.'. (You wouldn't believe some of the suggestions along the way, like he might be John Poindexter's son.)
You'd have to exclude some American societies for that to work. (e.g, Boston marriage)
Um, no. The acts of judges who legislate from the bench are the problem. See why it's so important for people like Santorum to give voice to the conservative point of view? Because people like yourself don't even understand it. How can you disagree with something when you don't even understand it?
It is you who do not know what I'm talking about. Please google 'boston marriage' before saying anything more. I'm almost tempted not to correct you, because you ranting about something you don't know anything about is funny.
As for your marriage comments, you have no idea what you're talking about, because you've fallen into a translation trap. Every society has a word meaning a 'relationship between a man and a woman'. If you call this relationship 'marriage', then, yes, almost every society considers a marriage to be a relationship between one man and a woman. That is, however, circular logic.
In reality, societies have names for almost every type of relationship, and the legal and societial aspects given to 'marriage' here could be given to other relationships elsewhere. For example, consorts of important men were often accorded the same status as we give wives now, even if they were male. (Whereas wifes were relegated to childbearing and low status.)
And there's the interesting custom in some Native American tribes where a woman could magically be declared a man for all intents and purposes, gain a wife, and even father children, although we must assume there was a little behind-the-scenes arrangement there with some other man.
None of that appears to need to be remedied by this policy.
The first one: Well, obviously, the FAA should fine them. If it's legally required, than how are they getting away with not showing it?
For the second...um, duh. So? If they show higher fares, it seems silly to assume that people would use them. OTOH, if they're showing a higher fare and attributing it to Orbitz, Orbitz needs to sue them...that's libel, especially if done delibrately to hide fees.
As for the third...I already said what Orbitz should do about a higher fare. For an incorrect lower fare...well, Orbitz should wander in, purchase eight billion of their tickets though the interface, paying the incorrect lower price and causing them to purchase them at the real price, instantly bankrupting the scapers. And then return the tickets to themselves to sell again.
As for the last...tough beans. Just because you sell a produce doesn't mean you can always control how said product is purchased.
Well, first let's address the out of context quote.
I'm confused. Why did you dedicate over 100 words to what you call "the gay story," saying yourself, "This, by itself, would be enough to make the rounds," if it's not important to you? I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think you're sending a mixed message here.
Because I didn't. I said that it would be 'enough to make the rounds on the blogs, as yet another example of right-wing hypocritisy'. And then I said it would not make the news. You rather obviously aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. All sorts of crap makes the rounds on the blogs. Hence my reference to '12 year olds' later on. In case it was not explicit enough, I think everyone obsessing over that is being a bit silly, but the left rather enjoys the right being hypocrits.
But, since you've allegded it's not true, I have to tell you you are wrong...the business, Bedrock Corp of Wilmington, that owns the domains was located at his home address. Or, at least, that's the only address besides a Mailboxes Etc. It's his business. Now, I'm not saying those are his sites, but if they aren't, they're his client's sites. Or people are just randomly registering domains at his house, which is not completely discountable, except they were registered way before anyone know who 'Gannon' was. You're right that 'running' is an exaggeration...they are currently empty.
As for him being employed by a news service...he is not. He is employed by the 'Eberle Communications Group' (through the shell domain of TalonNews, which is merely a place for the GOPUSA to get stories) which is a PR/direct marketing firm.
To repeat that differently, and because it's to important as to why Gannon is not a journalist, a marketing firm is operating an 'advocacy group' to collect news stories and distribute them to interested parties, and this advocacy group is, itself, operating a 'news service' so that said advocacy group has stories to hand out. It's an incredibly obvious scam, because they're all owned by Bobby and Bruce Eberle.
Gannon is working for a PR firm employed by Republicans. It's not some fucking under-the-table deal that needs to be proven. Talon News exists to provide stories to the GOPUSA newswire, so that stories can be printed that show the PR firm's (which is owned by the owner of GOPUSA's brother) clients, and the Republican party in general, in a good light.
If that's not enough, GOPUSA, the 'new service', was created with the stated purpose of getting conservative Republicans in office in Texas.
He's paid to write conservative 'news stories' that are basically whatever the Eberle brothers want. He's a paid shill.
As for 'gay baiting' and whatnot, I really don't have time to look up and read all his gibberish. If you want to say he doesn't, I won't argue, because when I was reading about this I didn't bother to follow any of the link proporting to show that.
But he did defend Santorum's rather offensive comment that you copied. Which, BTW, is 'true' only for extremely limited values of 'every society'. You'd have to exclude some American societies for that to work. (e.g, Boston marriage)
And, in general, it is only true because the relationship we would refer to as marriage is, in that statement, being refered to as marriage in those societies, which is circular logic if I've ever heard it.He's defining marriage as a (presumably sexual) 'relationship not between homosexuals', and pointing out that every society has a concept meaning that kind of relationship. Um, duh. People like to come up with words meaning things. Makes it easier to talk.
(However, he's still wrong here, because quite a few societies have never distinguished between a relationship with a man and a woman and two women, but I'm sure he's just defining those societies as having no concept of marriage at all. Either that or he's very ignorant.)
Slashdot Mirror
I have a legal copy of Office 2003 (Actually, two, thanks to MS being weird and mailing me a free copy.), and I not only don't have it installed under Linux, I don't have it in Windows either.
Why? Openoffice works fine for what I need. I'm aware some people need MS Office, but people who need it usually can afford the thing. Warez kiddies don't need it, and thus are unlikely to bother with it on Wine, especially since you have to purchase Crossover Office. (Of course, they could just pirate that...)
Not why they are a monopoly convicted of using their position for exactly this sort of crap, they don't.
Cameras can't see your face if you have lemon juice on it. Tell all the criminals you know.
AOL is the platonic ideal of gimping people.
Okay, I've looked up what a 'chav' was, but what's 'ram-raided'? A battering ram knocking down the door?
For example, if I am a police officer, and follow a fleeing suspect into your house.
Or if I am running from someone trying to kill me, it is legal for me to commit lesser crimes to escape, including breaking and entering and trespassing.
Or if my car has crashed into your house. Not an example you'd want, but it's certainly illegal to electricute me as I'm trying to walk out of your house, or the EMS team as they're coming in, even if I've crashed through your wall.
I'd rather see criminals completely forbidden from socializing with any other criminals whatsoever. Which is obviously an absurd preposition in prison, but it's what I'd like. People serving time could not interact with anyone serving time.
And, like you, I'd like to see the non-violent ones living in small apartments, with few amenities. Think prison cells you can leave, except you have to cook your own food. (Okay, think dorm rooms.) You have a TV, but all you can watch is non-fiction. You're not allowed to eat out, unless you have a job that requires it, you're not allowed to see a movie, you will get a small allowance, and you will be told where you can spend it. You will have a schedule. You should have a job, and the money will be saved for you when you get out. These restrictions will slowly be relaxed over time, until the GPS is taken off, you get all your money, and you either have to pay rent or move somewhere else.
The violent ones are a different matter, and I don't divide those the way everyone else does.If you're a serial killer or serial rapists or some other sort of sociopath...well, we should just get an island for those idiots and throw them there, and airdrop some food every week.
If you're someone who coldly decided to kill someone because it benefited you, well, you're never going to be unwatched. Tough. You think benefit to you is worth people, and are extremely dangerous. This includes 'thugs for hire'.
If you're someone who killed someone in the heat of the moment or because a robbery went south...well, we'll see if you're fixable.
Blackmarkets have a lot more crime against the people working in the market mainly because they have no one to complain to about law-breaking activities.
If you're really clever, you can lure them to your house instead. But that would probably require not being a sociopath. ;)
Oh, no they didn't, and five pretend softball questions doesn't prove anything. For one thing, the only actual softball questions was by Sarah McClendon. Sarah McClendon. She probably is, indeed, a poster child for loose credentialing process, as the article claims. But not because she asked easy questions or was left leaning, but because she liked to yell random accusations at presidents, including Clinton.
She's the one who started asking Clinton about drug operations being run out of Mena, Arkansas in January 2001 which was a rather crackpot theory, (Instead of normal questions to outgoing presidents, like the transitition to Bush's presidency, or, hell, Florida election issues.) and that's just something I can find in ten seconds of googling. She wasn't a friend of the administation...any administation. She asked completely oddball questions, and, apparently one of them was completely opposite her usually oddball direction. Many of them were about lunatic things, like the rather infamous time she asked Clinton why he didn't do anything about UFOs.
The only reason she was still there was historical and the fact that, once in a while, she asked a 'crackpot question' that actually turned out true. She was like the press room's Drudge Report.
The other questions are not a proof of anything except that a wide variety of questions get asked. It's basically 'there were more important issues existing at the time', but, as I would expect from the National Review, it does absolutely no research into whether or not those questions had already been asked. (Or quite likely, did the research, and didn't print it, because they had been asked.) Asking the president something over and over in a press conference is not incredibly useful, especially if he gave a canned reply the first time.
Well, except for the rape question, which was asked twice. Asking the president twice about rape and being deferred to his lawyer both times doesn't seem, to me, incredibly like 'avoiding the issue' as the article claims, at least not by anyone but the president.
Now for the Plame leak:
He asked the question: An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that? in an interview with Wilson.
According to the Washington Post, only they had a copy at the time he conducted the interview. Now, the memo's existence was common knowledge, but he appeared to demonstrated knowledge of the contents.
And in fact, he admitted he had the memo at that time in the interview with Wolf Blitzer less than a week ago. Blows your hold 'he read the newspaper' theory away, doesn't it?
So the question now arises: Did he get access to the memo because the Post is leaky? Or did he get access because it was independantly leaked to him?
And that's all I said. That was part of the the reason he was 'uncovered' by the blogs, because he was talking about having seen a memo that, according to the Post, only they had.
And I have no idea which it is. I suspect it's just the first, and the FBI seems to think so also.
But, you like to make up positions for me to hold, so I'm sure you've made up one where I've already tried him for treason. I don't think he did anything that was the slightest bit illegal, and I don't think that was obvious at all when the question was asked 'Hey, who is this guy, anyway?', which apparently no one should ever ask. It looked like he could be part of the leak.
As for your stupid assertation that enough people knew who he was: That's not that I said. I said to be a pen name, you have to have your real name known. That's what a 'pen name' is. Otherwise it's just a pseudonym, a fake name. Real journa
I thought Ford was adopted into Zaphod's family after the great collapsing Hrung disaster.
In fact, I always imagined Ford had a rather weird accent for England. He isn't native, you know.
Did you forget they actually did save the universe in the books? Granted, not in the first one, but later on.
As for 'discrediting'...damn right. He managed to get into the press corps and lobbied softball questions, some of them without any factual basis. (For example, he once treated a Rush Limbaugh joke as if it were real. That is, he asked a question based off it in the press room.) Someone asked who the hell the goofball was, and it turns out that no one knew.
Now you can argue that anyone should be able to get in there if they want, and, hell, I'm with you on that...but they can't. Or, at least, not usually.
As for the Plume leak...he knew the contents of the memo that was leaked before almost anyone else knew them, and this has gotten the government interested. I didn't say he was guilty of anything, in fact, I explicitly said he wasn't, but you like quoting out of context. But it certainly make him a legitmate target for investigation, especially when no one knows how the hell he really is. Um, duh.
As for the marriage thing...claiming that every society throughout history has defined marriage as something is a fucking sematic game.
No. All patents are supposed to be implimentable from the patent information by itself. Patents are not secret...if you patent something, everyone is supposed to know how to do it, they're just supposed to be unable to do it.
Oh, come on. You Europeans claim to be best at everything. Face it, America has a much crappier system that's just as expensive.
Gates isn't, because what he's threatening to do is legal, not because of how he made the threat.
And it's probably not legally extortion, either, because the action threated is not revealing information or an illegal action or a misuse of a position, but, trust me, everyone here understands hyperbole. They just don't understand using the wrong damn word. It'd be like talking about Gates 'kidnapping' the jobs or 'robbing' the government.
First clue: Fake names.
And I didn't say that al-Jazeera was a real news service. Again, you're just making up stuff and ascribing it to me.
And, as far as I can tell, al-Jazeera is not in the briefing room. Considering we bombed their building in 2003, having them in the briefing room in 2002 would be a bit crazy. But, hey, apparently you can just make shit up and don't need to cite it or anything.
But, hey, it's not my job to answer why the White House is apparently opening the door to everyone carrying a notebook.
That's a lie.
Did you read the discovery? It's right there on the Daily Kos, out in the open. People were looking up 'Gannon's address by searching the whois records, and suddenly went 'What the hell are these domain names doing here?'.
I'm not even going to respond to this topic anymore until you can tell me the name of the person who first posted the list of domains. (The list that, I repeat, was the only was anyone figured out who Gannon was.) Until then, I will assume you didn't even read the discovery, and are therefore just repeating what others have said.
Or is it suddenly off limits to even wonder who people in the briefing room are? Especially when they've been named in connection to the Plame CIA leak? (Not that I'm saying he's guilty of any wrong-doing at all, just that it's perfectly valid to go 'Who is that guy?'.)
More Nazi propaganda shit. You're more interested in muddling the meanings of universally understood words than you are in actually having a conversation. You're more interested in weaving little webs of lies than you are in communicating.
Um...he's the one who made the assertation. No non-English speaking country defined 'marriage' as anything, as that is an English word. As that makes the translation rather important, I do not feel that pointing out his translation is screwy is 'Nazi propanda shit'.
BTW...you just Godwin'd.
Let's assume we live in a country where everyone sits on stools. We call these 'demels'.
Some people would like to allow manufacturers to put backs on demels, and others claim that is immoral, and, to bolster this claim, say that 'Every country has defined a demel as a flat surface to sit on about two feet in the air, with no back'.
So, is this true, we wonder? We drive due west into our country-next-door, America, and ask them 'What do you define a *we quickly page through our translation dictionary* 'stool' as?'
And they tell us that, of course a stool does not have a back. The anti-back people are vindicated.
Except, of course they aren't. That's crazy. Americans sit on chairs, and see no problems with backs. Americans just don't call them stools, and someone decided the correct translation of 'demel' was 'stool', so Americans don't have backs on their 'demels'.
And it's not just a translation issue, it's a cultural ones. People who study any historical society call 'a legal binding between a man and a woman to produce children' marriage because that's what we call it. But, in reality, 'marriage' includes a lot of different things, and quite a lot of those things were available to people of the same sex in various societies throughout history. (Including, like I said about the native americans, the ability to produce children, although that was obviously faked and everyone knew it.)
In fact, I'd wager that everything that goes along with marriage, be it 'love', 'security', 'status', 'money sharing', 'children', etc, have, at one time or another, be available to people of the same sex.
However, like I said, they aren't a real news service. Just like I am not a real news service. All that means is that the government shouldn't be giving them a fucking press pass to the Whitehouse, just like it should not give me one.
Now, we can argue over exactly where something becomes a real news service, but I'm not playing that game. Congress, when he tried to get a press pass there, quite rightly realized it wasn't a new service, and failed to issue them one.
This, of course, doesn't mean they can't watch the press room on C-SPAN. Hell, as they are working for people with close ties to the administation, they could probably get a personal interview with the president.
However, the rule is, to be invited in the press room, you have to be a member of the press. That's been the rule since there was a press room.
And trying to make him out to be a member of the press makes the whole situtation worse. The press has standards and rules they hold themselves to, witness the recent CBS flap where they failed to follow said standards. Do you really want 'Talon News' held up to the standards CBS or even Fox News is held to? Because it would fail horribly.
And you can claim al-Jazeera isn't a news service when they get a press pass.
As for the sex issue: You keep saying false information. If you don't want it to be an issue, stop lying about it.
For your information, though, you may want to read why that information was discovered, over on te Daily Kos. It was discovered because no one knew who the hell 'Gannon' was and why he was allowed in the press room. The way he was tracked down was through the addresses listed in whois on the domains he owned. It wasn't 'let's go look up dirt on this guy', it was 'You know, this guy in the press room lobbing softball questions appears to inexplicably be operating under an alias. Who is he? Let's find out everything we can about 'Gannon' so we can track down who he really is.'. (You wouldn't believe some of the suggestions along the way, like he might be John Poindexter's son.)
You'd have to exclude some American societies for that to work. (e.g, Boston marriage)
Um, no. The acts of judges who legislate from the bench are the problem. See why it's so important for people like Santorum to give voice to the conservative point of view? Because people like yourself don't even understand it. How can you disagree with something when you don't even understand it?
It is you who do not know what I'm talking about. Please google 'boston marriage' before saying anything more. I'm almost tempted not to correct you, because you ranting about something you don't know anything about is funny.
As for your marriage comments, you have no idea what you're talking about, because you've fallen into a translation trap. Every society has a word meaning a 'relationship between a man and a woman'. If you call this relationship 'marriage', then, yes, almost every society considers a marriage to be a relationship between one man and a woman. That is, however, circular logic.
In reality, societies have names for almost every type of relationship, and the legal and societial aspects given to 'marriage' here could be given to other relationships elsewhere. For example, consorts of important men were often accorded the same status as we give wives now, even if they were male. (Whereas wifes were relegated to childbearing and low status.)
And there's the interesting custom in some Native American tribes where a woman could magically be declared a man for all intents and purposes, gain a wife, and even father children, although we must assume there was a little behind-the-scenes arrangement there with some other man.
The first one: Well, obviously, the FAA should fine them. If it's legally required, than how are they getting away with not showing it?
For the second...um, duh. So? If they show higher fares, it seems silly to assume that people would use them. OTOH, if they're showing a higher fare and attributing it to Orbitz, Orbitz needs to sue them...that's libel, especially if done delibrately to hide fees.
As for the third...I already said what Orbitz should do about a higher fare. For an incorrect lower fare...well, Orbitz should wander in, purchase eight billion of their tickets though the interface, paying the incorrect lower price and causing them to purchase them at the real price, instantly bankrupting the scapers. And then return the tickets to themselves to sell again.
As for the last...tough beans. Just because you sell a produce doesn't mean you can always control how said product is purchased.
The what? Why do you assume the US constitution applies to people located all over the world, in places as far-flung as New York and California?
At least, that's the way I'm reading it. Quick, everyone link to Orbitz, so you can't ever legally use them!
I'm confused. Why did you dedicate over 100 words to what you call "the gay story," saying yourself, "This, by itself, would be enough to make the rounds," if it's not important to you? I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I think you're sending a mixed message here.
Because I didn't. I said that it would be 'enough to make the rounds on the blogs, as yet another example of right-wing hypocritisy'. And then I said it would not make the news. You rather obviously aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. All sorts of crap makes the rounds on the blogs. Hence my reference to '12 year olds' later on. In case it was not explicit enough, I think everyone obsessing over that is being a bit silly, but the left rather enjoys the right being hypocrits.
But, since you've allegded it's not true, I have to tell you you are wrong...the business, Bedrock Corp of Wilmington, that owns the domains was located at his home address. Or, at least, that's the only address besides a Mailboxes Etc. It's his business. Now, I'm not saying those are his sites, but if they aren't, they're his client's sites. Or people are just randomly registering domains at his house, which is not completely discountable, except they were registered way before anyone know who 'Gannon' was. You're right that 'running' is an exaggeration...they are currently empty.
As for him being employed by a news service...he is not. He is employed by the 'Eberle Communications Group' (through the shell domain of TalonNews, which is merely a place for the GOPUSA to get stories) which is a PR/direct marketing firm.
To repeat that differently, and because it's to important as to why Gannon is not a journalist, a marketing firm is operating an 'advocacy group' to collect news stories and distribute them to interested parties, and this advocacy group is, itself, operating a 'news service' so that said advocacy group has stories to hand out. It's an incredibly obvious scam, because they're all owned by Bobby and Bruce Eberle.
Gannon is working for a PR firm employed by Republicans. It's not some fucking under-the-table deal that needs to be proven. Talon News exists to provide stories to the GOPUSA newswire, so that stories can be printed that show the PR firm's (which is owned by the owner of GOPUSA's brother) clients, and the Republican party in general, in a good light.
If that's not enough, GOPUSA, the 'new service', was created with the stated purpose of getting conservative Republicans in office in Texas.
He's paid to write conservative 'news stories' that are basically whatever the Eberle brothers want. He's a paid shill.
As for 'gay baiting' and whatnot, I really don't have time to look up and read all his gibberish. If you want to say he doesn't, I won't argue, because when I was reading about this I didn't bother to follow any of the link proporting to show that.
But he did defend Santorum's rather offensive comment that you copied. Which, BTW, is 'true' only for extremely limited values of 'every society'. You'd have to exclude some American societies for that to work. (e.g, Boston marriage)
And, in general, it is only true because the relationship we would refer to as marriage is, in that statement, being refered to as marriage in those societies, which is circular logic if I've ever heard it.He's defining marriage as a (presumably sexual) 'relationship not between homosexuals', and pointing out that every society has a concept meaning that kind of relationship. Um, duh. People like to come up with words meaning things. Makes it easier to talk.
(However, he's still wrong here, because quite a few societies have never distinguished between a relationship with a man and a woman and two women, but I'm sure he's just defining those societies as having no concept of marriage at all. Either that or he's very ignorant.)