When Bush was in charge, it was perfectly okay with run 2 wars and a huge
2 Wars with congressional approval, you mean. As opposed to a War with NO congressional approval, because Obama seems to think (and stated as much IIRC) that UN approval trumps congressional.
But no, lets ignore all that and continue hating on Bush and the republicans; everything must be their fault.
You were just aggrieved because you thought it applied to you.
Even if I was wrong about his post-- which on second reading it appears I was-- I've already been called all sorts of things, both personally (stupid, crazy), and as part of the larger group (vitriolic, bigotted, etc). The entire notion that the right is some bastion of hate is ripped to shreds by a casual perusal of this very thread.
If you REALLY want to go there, Im pretty sure that was a far, far left movement. As was Nazi Germany, if we really want to bring up the past 100 years. And the Soviet Union.
But heres the thing-- I personally find it inappropriate to try and place responsibility for the holocaust into the lap of the modern democrat. Even if they believed SOME of the same things, Im not about to call Obama Hitler. But from all the responses Im getting from leftists in this thread, its seems that THEY have no problem with that kind of behavior, so long as its directed at the right wing.
Apparently the fact that the right wing doesnt think 90% of the things you mentioned is the government's role-- that makes us fair game for all the insults you want to throw our way.
Is it possible that we dont want all the social programs, not because we hate poor people or are racist, but because we think the Government has proven itself incredibly bad at doing those things, and that a great number of them are counterproductive?
No, of course not, its perfectly reasonable to call anyone with that attitude a mouthbreather, crazy, and worse.
In case anyone is wondering what Im referring to, its stuff like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPkX4FSDw18&feature=related Juan williams is being called a "house negro" becaues he dares become more conservative, he dares criticize vitriol from the left. Theyre comparing him to Uncle Ruckus from THe Boondocks. THATS not rascist, not at all-- so long as its coming from the left, right?
Never expecting us the notice that they were the conservatives of their day, and that their ideas are not part of the Republican banner. That's a really tired bit of noise there.
Where does all the "race traitor" language come from these days? I seem to remember a certain reporter who got called all sorts of nasty things because he dared to be both black AND republican. Where does all the language trying to stir up racial tension come from?
I think it would be a bit much to say that all of the fault is on the right. People are people, but theres plenty of mud being slung from both sides.
Aside from the No true scotsman you just tried to pull, we have yet MORE name calling; not just a subhuman fascist, not just worthy of being drowned in a hurricane, but stupid to boot.
Does anyone catch the irony of it all here, that Im supposed to be in the party of hate, given all the crap ive gotten since posting?
Maybe im just kind of disgusted at everyone in this thread. The really sad thing is Im pretty sure everyone is over the age of 20; this is apparently what passes for mature these days.
Or that the damages are absurd to almost any rational individual,
Those damages were not assigned until AFTER the verdict, and are the maximum (i think) penalty, not a mandatory sentence. Fighting for the principle of the thing would have meant no perjury, but instead admitting the crime and fighting it on the basis of excess damages. He didnt do that, because he wasnt fighting for any principles; he just wants to break the law and then lie his way out of it.
Just that there has been a settling of such people in the Republican party.
And apparently in the Dem party too, if comments amounting to "I dont care if the entire GOP convention drowns" are what passes for acceptable around here.
Sorry, but it's nowhere NEAR as comparable. Especially when Republicans accuse Democrats of being hateful because of a stand against bigotry and intolerance.
IIRC it was repubs who had to try to get civil rights laws, and southern democrats resisted it bitterly. We can try to sling mud all day long, but things arent as onesided as you seem to think. And honestly, with all the hate I see on the mostly-dem slashdot, its a bit much for you to assert that the right (presumably the christian right) is the source of it all, especially given the comment that kicked off this thread coming from a leftie.
Only if you promise to check out some right-wing forums, and honestly tell me that there isn't a group of people who call themselves part of the Republican ideology who engage in the behavior I described.
Theres no need for that; I acknowledge that for any particular group you could name, I could find a subgroup who is hateful, and a subgroup that is not (excepting cases where such behavior is mutually exclusive with being in that group, obviously). Democrats can be irrational, hateful, etc, and so can republicans.
You can argue that there are more in one group or another, but as soon as you start enmasse judging people based on their affiliation you have crossed a line. My being a republican does not mean I endorse every action of every republican who has ever lived; it simply indicates what role I think Government has allotted to it and how I think a country is best led.
I'm sorry, but your party has become the home of a rather fanatical group of people who behave like I said. If you don't like it, start speaking out like I suggested.
My goal in life isnt to fix whatever you think is wrong with my party, but Im not going to just remain silent in the forum I DO frequent (slashdot) while everyone goes full-bore hypocritical in calling all right-wingers hateful in the same breath that they imply that the GOP convention's death-by-hurricane would be welcome. Theres something in me that just gets riled up when that low level of discussion is hit and then someone has the audacity to label me (as part of a larger group) as the one who is the problem.
Tell me you've really never heard of the filibuster. It's very possible for the minority to obstruct the majority.
No, its not. Modern congressional rules do NOT allow anyone to filibuster at any time they like. With sufficient votes, a filibuster can be prevented, and IIRC the house AND senate had that for quite some time.
FYI... House rules:
In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.
Senate rules:
Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[44] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.
(All taken from the wikipedia article on the filibuster.
But after reading your comment I guess I am free to think of you as a sub-human fascist?
The HUGE irony here is that another response just labeled MY ideology as centered on vitriol, and here I have just been labeled a sub-human fascist. Hypocrisy much?
I would ask that before any of you post on politics, you stop and ask yourself if the rhetoric you are using is really justified or contributes to a sane, civil discussion. I contend that what you just posted is hateful and does not.
You may some day have to accept that there is a substantial difference between the two parties/ideologies, that one has become the home of a rather fanatical group of people who govern on a platform of fear and self-deception while engaging in vitriolic and deceitful attacks while simultaneously asserting a hypocritical protest that they are the victims of hatred and oppression, that the other side is the liars, the meanies, and the real oppressors.
So Im an oppressor, a liar, a meanie? Im engaging in vitriolic attacks here?
Stop and consider that Slashdot is majority left-leaning, by a huge majority. Then stop and consider the amount of vitriol and hate that comes out in anything to do witht he Right wing. THEN re-evaluate your statement.
You can criticize Romney or any other specific politician for specific things they do all day long; thats fine and part of political discourse. But making broad sweeping statements like you just did is part of the demise of meaningful political discussion in this country. No longer can I just be "a republican"; in your eyes, I have become "the enemy", and THAT makes it impossible to have any kind of rational debate.
The original judge in fact did just that: held the statutory damage in this case to be "cruel and unusual" and thus reduced them. But yes, the primary fault is with the lawmakers.
Many judges will say that that should not be done except in exceptional cases-- its called "legislating from the bench", and it tends to break the 3-branch system that is supposed to make our system stable and keep it in check. Im not sure I would consider this to be an "exceptional case"-- I would reserve that for things like Jim Crow laws.
I'm not sure how they can say you owe $675,000 for stealing roughly $30 worth of products.
....And perjury, dont forget that part. If I were a judge I think id be pretty ticked too. Crying "have mercy" seems hollow when you show nothing but contempt for the courts.
Why, exactly, should we have jury nullification? Tenenbaum not only lied repeatedly to the courts, but it seems pretty clear that he is guilty (IIRC he even admitted to it). If EVER there were a case that should be decided in favor of the RIAA, this is EXACTLY it.
You dont get to demand jury nullification just because you dont like the plaintiff; laws were broken, the justice system was abused, and a good deal of taxpayer money was wasted by a guy who thought he was above the law and could get away with lying about it.
And FYI, Jury Nullification isnt the end of the story-- a Judge can overrule nullification with Judgement Notwithstanding Verdict, where he basically declares that the Jury ignored its job / instructions; in that case the Jury's verdict would be thrown out and replaced by the Judge's own decision. The courts using nullification simply because they dislike the plaintiff seems like a prime candidate for that.
You really dont want Tenenbaum to be your poster child for this. The guy perjured himself and attempted to tamper with evidence, and by all appearances (as well as jury decision) is guilty of infringement. On top of that he lied to the entire "copyright is evil and RIAA crackdown is draconian" following by pretending this was one of those cases where the RIAA was strongarming an innocent party. In my eyes, the RIAA was fully justified in pursuing a case against him, and $675k after all is said and done (including several years of lying to the courts and tying up resources) doesnt seem excessive to me at all. How many more appeals will we go through before this is done?
Slashdot Mirror
When Bush was in charge, it was perfectly okay with run 2 wars and a huge
2 Wars with congressional approval, you mean. As opposed to a War with NO congressional approval, because Obama seems to think (and stated as much IIRC) that UN approval trumps congressional.
But no, lets ignore all that and continue hating on Bush and the republicans; everything must be their fault.
You were just aggrieved because you thought it applied to you.
Even if I was wrong about his post-- which on second reading it appears I was-- I've already been called all sorts of things, both personally (stupid, crazy), and as part of the larger group (vitriolic, bigotted, etc). The entire notion that the right is some bastion of hate is ripped to shreds by a casual perusal of this very thread.
Oh come on, your party has decided that they're the voice of god.
Look over the full thread of responses Ive gotten, and then tell me who has slung more mud here. This whole discussion has made me feel dirty.
The Killing Fields?
If you REALLY want to go there, Im pretty sure that was a far, far left movement. As was Nazi Germany, if we really want to bring up the past 100 years. And the Soviet Union.
But heres the thing-- I personally find it inappropriate to try and place responsibility for the holocaust into the lap of the modern democrat. Even if they believed SOME of the same things, Im not about to call Obama Hitler. But from all the responses Im getting from leftists in this thread, its seems that THEY have no problem with that kind of behavior, so long as its directed at the right wing.
Apparently the fact that the right wing doesnt think 90% of the things you mentioned is the government's role-- that makes us fair game for all the insults you want to throw our way.
Is it possible that we dont want all the social programs, not because we hate poor people or are racist, but because we think the Government has proven itself incredibly bad at doing those things, and that a great number of them are counterproductive?
No, of course not, its perfectly reasonable to call anyone with that attitude a mouthbreather, crazy, and worse.
In case anyone is wondering what Im referring to, its stuff like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPkX4FSDw18&feature=related
Juan williams is being called a "house negro" becaues he dares become more conservative, he dares criticize vitriol from the left. Theyre comparing him to Uncle Ruckus from THe Boondocks. THATS not rascist, not at all-- so long as its coming from the left, right?
Never expecting us the notice that they were the conservatives of their day, and that their ideas are not part of the Republican banner. That's a really tired bit of noise there.
Where does all the "race traitor" language come from these days? I seem to remember a certain reporter who got called all sorts of nasty things because he dared to be both black AND republican. Where does all the language trying to stir up racial tension come from?
I think it would be a bit much to say that all of the fault is on the right. People are people, but theres plenty of mud being slung from both sides.
Aside from the No true scotsman you just tried to pull, we have yet MORE name calling; not just a subhuman fascist, not just worthy of being drowned in a hurricane, but stupid to boot.
Does anyone catch the irony of it all here, that Im supposed to be in the party of hate, given all the crap ive gotten since posting?
Maybe im just kind of disgusted at everyone in this thread. The really sad thing is Im pretty sure everyone is over the age of 20; this is apparently what passes for mature these days.
Given what is leading the GOP, I prefer the statement: "I would LOVE to see the entire GOP convention drown".
But of course WE'RE the party of hate, of vitriol?
This is unbelievable that yall are playing both sides like this. Have you no shame?
Or that the damages are absurd to almost any rational individual,
Those damages were not assigned until AFTER the verdict, and are the maximum (i think) penalty, not a mandatory sentence. Fighting for the principle of the thing would have meant no perjury, but instead admitting the crime and fighting it on the basis of excess damages. He didnt do that, because he wasnt fighting for any principles; he just wants to break the law and then lie his way out of it.
Just that there has been a settling of such people in the Republican party.
And apparently in the Dem party too, if comments amounting to "I dont care if the entire GOP convention drowns" are what passes for acceptable around here.
Sorry, but it's nowhere NEAR as comparable. Especially when Republicans accuse Democrats of being hateful because of a stand against bigotry and intolerance.
IIRC it was repubs who had to try to get civil rights laws, and southern democrats resisted it bitterly. We can try to sling mud all day long, but things arent as onesided as you seem to think. And honestly, with all the hate I see on the mostly-dem slashdot, its a bit much for you to assert that the right (presumably the christian right) is the source of it all, especially given the comment that kicked off this thread coming from a leftie.
Only if you promise to check out some right-wing forums, and honestly tell me that there isn't a group of people who call themselves part of the Republican ideology who engage in the behavior I described.
Theres no need for that; I acknowledge that for any particular group you could name, I could find a subgroup who is hateful, and a subgroup that is not (excepting cases where such behavior is mutually exclusive with being in that group, obviously). Democrats can be irrational, hateful, etc, and so can republicans.
You can argue that there are more in one group or another, but as soon as you start enmasse judging people based on their affiliation you have crossed a line. My being a republican does not mean I endorse every action of every republican who has ever lived; it simply indicates what role I think Government has allotted to it and how I think a country is best led.
I'm sorry, but your party has become the home of a rather fanatical group of people who behave like I said. If you don't like it, start speaking out like I suggested.
My goal in life isnt to fix whatever you think is wrong with my party, but Im not going to just remain silent in the forum I DO frequent (slashdot) while everyone goes full-bore hypocritical in calling all right-wingers hateful in the same breath that they imply that the GOP convention's death-by-hurricane would be welcome. Theres something in me that just gets riled up when that low level of discussion is hit and then someone has the audacity to label me (as part of a larger group) as the one who is the problem.
Tell me you've really never heard of the filibuster. It's very possible for the minority to obstruct the majority.
No, its not. Modern congressional rules do NOT allow anyone to filibuster at any time they like. With sufficient votes, a filibuster can be prevented, and IIRC the house AND senate had that for quite some time.
FYI...
House rules:
In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.
Senate rules:
Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[44] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.
(All taken from the wikipedia article on the filibuster.
But after reading your comment I guess I am free to think of you as a sub-human fascist?
The HUGE irony here is that another response just labeled MY ideology as centered on vitriol, and here I have just been labeled a sub-human fascist. Hypocrisy much?
I would ask that before any of you post on politics, you stop and ask yourself if the rhetoric you are using is really justified or contributes to a sane, civil discussion. I contend that what you just posted is hateful and does not.
You may some day have to accept that there is a substantial difference between the two parties/ideologies, that one has become the home of a rather fanatical group of people who govern on a platform of fear and self-deception while engaging in vitriolic and deceitful attacks while simultaneously asserting a hypocritical protest that they are the victims of hatred and oppression, that the other side is the liars, the meanies, and the real oppressors.
So Im an oppressor, a liar, a meanie? Im engaging in vitriolic attacks here?
Stop and consider that Slashdot is majority left-leaning, by a huge majority. Then stop and consider the amount of vitriol and hate that comes out in anything to do witht he Right wing. THEN re-evaluate your statement.
You can criticize Romney or any other specific politician for specific things they do all day long; thats fine and part of political discourse. But making broad sweeping statements like you just did is part of the demise of meaningful political discussion in this country. No longer can I just be "a republican"; in your eyes, I have become "the enemy", and THAT makes it impossible to have any kind of rational debate.
He's fighting for a principle here.
What principle, exactly, is he fighting for? The right to flaunt existing copyright law and then lie about it? Or the right to destroy evidence?
The average total wage earnings for a working adult 65yro-25yro x $50,000 is $2 million dollars (before taxes).
Hes a law student IIRC; if you end up only making $50k/yr as a law school grad youre in some pretty big trouble anyways (from tuition debt).
The original judge in fact did just that: held the statutory damage in this case to be "cruel and unusual" and thus reduced them. But yes, the primary fault is with the lawmakers.
Many judges will say that that should not be done except in exceptional cases-- its called "legislating from the bench", and it tends to break the 3-branch system that is supposed to make our system stable and keep it in check. Im not sure I would consider this to be an "exceptional case"-- I would reserve that for things like Jim Crow laws.
All of your attempts to slander the defendant are ultimately irrelevant.
Its not slander when its true, and perjury isnt exactly "irrelevant" when discussing a court case.
I'm not sure how they can say you owe $675,000 for stealing roughly $30 worth of products.
....And perjury, dont forget that part. If I were a judge I think id be pretty ticked too. Crying "have mercy" seems hollow when you show nothing but contempt for the courts.
The verdict handed down in this case is a life destroying verdict for a young man.
I lost all sympathy for the guy when it became apparent that he lied about basically everything.
Why, exactly, should we have jury nullification? Tenenbaum not only lied repeatedly to the courts, but it seems pretty clear that he is guilty (IIRC he even admitted to it). If EVER there were a case that should be decided in favor of the RIAA, this is EXACTLY it.
You dont get to demand jury nullification just because you dont like the plaintiff; laws were broken, the justice system was abused, and a good deal of taxpayer money was wasted by a guy who thought he was above the law and could get away with lying about it.
And FYI, Jury Nullification isnt the end of the story-- a Judge can overrule nullification with Judgement Notwithstanding Verdict, where he basically declares that the Jury ignored its job / instructions; in that case the Jury's verdict would be thrown out and replaced by the Judge's own decision. The courts using nullification simply because they dislike the plaintiff seems like a prime candidate for that.
You really dont want Tenenbaum to be your poster child for this. The guy perjured himself and attempted to tamper with evidence, and by all appearances (as well as jury decision) is guilty of infringement. On top of that he lied to the entire "copyright is evil and RIAA crackdown is draconian" following by pretending this was one of those cases where the RIAA was strongarming an innocent party. In my eyes, the RIAA was fully justified in pursuing a case against him, and $675k after all is said and done (including several years of lying to the courts and tying up resources) doesnt seem excessive to me at all. How many more appeals will we go through before this is done?