You need to put it his comments in context. She said that UK politicians have no right to comment on things like stoning of women in Iran, presumably because that's a Muslim thing and she's a "political correctness" extremist who would sooner allow an innocent teenager to die a horrible death than dare insult precious male Muslim feelings. He shouldn't have even apologized, never mind get arrested. It's obviously a sarcastic response to her comments and in no way an incitement to violence.
Easy, the government should auction them, just like unoccupied land was auctioned off. If someone broadcast on a frequency in a certain area where you own the exclusive right you can sue them. No different than it is now, it is illegal for you to broadcast on a frequency "leased" by someone.
As for the airwaves, please tell me how any one person can own a frequency. Now tell me how you are going to get permission from every single property owner to beam stuff onto his property. Or do you think that anyone should be allowed to beam radiation anywhere they like? Radio waves are not like normal property, they can't be. They are a shared resource by their very nature.
Of course you cannot own radio waves but you could own (and buy and sell) an exclusive right to use a particular frequency. Why not? It's really not any different from the right to own land (a shared limited resource) and we have laws that manage that. To use the example I read somewhere (Friedman I think) Opera houses are a limited resource as not everybody who wants to sing in an Opera house can do so. Therefore should government take over Opera houses and ration them with conditions attached? After all Opera houses are build on a limited resource we all share (in this case land, it could be radio frequencies). But it is not land or radio frequencies that give value to the Opera House/radio station. It is the work the owners put into it by building and running the opera house or the infrastructure to make programing and broadcast possible that give it value. Otherwise its just a bunch of dirt/unused frequency bands.
Despite its reputation for secrecy and technical expertise,... virtually all of the methods the NSA uses for development and information assurance are publicly known.
Secrecy doesn't have to extend to every single thing. I'm sure NSA uses regular toilets too, not the top secret kind. As for reputation for technical expertise, how does using tried and tested development methods goes against that?
How about, since we the people own the airwaves and just lease them out to corporations, we require those corporations to give every politician who raises X number of signatures free airtime?
"people own the airwaves" part is a special kind of bullshit but that's a whole other discussion. As for your "idea" of, presumably, banning private campaign funding and instead giving access to airwaves based on number of signatures. Where does it say in the constitution that the freedom of speech is limited to those who gather X number of signature? How can they gather X number of signatures if they don't have access to airwaves and therefore cannot promote their cause until they get them. How many signatures will be required? Too many and the government effectively prohibits the rise of new political parties (no potential for abuse there at all). Too few and you give a national platform to neo-nazis, communists, religious fundamentalists etc.
Ha, ha, good old ad hominem, just another way of admitting that you've lost the argument. Note the pathetically childish and uncivil behavior by the left towards the Tea Party candidates and Conservatives in general throughout the last election campaign. It worked out really well.
He is the leading financier of the left in the US so why not him. Plus he's a true natural born slimy scumbag if there ever was one so we feel we are doing the world a favor even regardless of politics.
I don't lie, I might be wrong but if so I am honestly wrong. First of all, technically I am right because he just donated $1 million to them so they ARE financed by him. Secondly, you are being pretty naive if you think that overt donation directly from his pocket is the only kind there is. For example, Soros laughably claims that the donations made by his Open Society Institute are not actually made by him and it's a totally separate thing. OSI has spend over $5 billion over the years on liberal causes, including a lot of goups which in turn create or fund things like media matters. Without having time to research the matter, here is one example: OSI donates $1 million to The Tides Foundation in 2005. The Tides Foundation donates $1 million to Media Matters in 2005. Nothing to do with Soros, right?
Anybody donating to politicians is a potential problem, including individuals, lobby groups, unions etc. Why single out corporate shareholders as the only group not allowed to donate? The reality is that politicians need money to finance their campaigns and get their message out, otherwise democracy wouldn't work as you wouldn't have a clue who to vote for. The question is where the money should come from and the sad truth is that wherever it comes from there is potential for abuse. Financing campaigns with public money would be even worse. Btw, are you in favor of banning political contributions from unions? Good luck getting one Democrat to support that and yet it is not substantially different from contributions by corporate shareholders.
I never said political donations from corporations are a bad thing, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Corporations are made out of people, employees and shareholders, that's it. If the shareholders, who own a corporation, wish to donate their money to a political candidate why on Earth shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If the executives who are hired by the shareholders to run the corporation give the money without shareholders approval, they are free to fire them.
Ha, ha, you are quoting the article's quote of Obama spokesman. Please read from the begining:
"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees -- $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. "
Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" center dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation" financed by a left wing billionaire George Soros (who by the way made his billions in currency speculations on a scale that bankrupted a country). Sounds fair and balanced to me.
Wow, when you get tired of foaming at the mouth about evil Republican "corporate masters" that you read so much about on huffington post and daily kos, maybe you'll realize that Democrats get more money in political contributions from corporations than Republicans do. To take one example, Obama was the biggest recipient of donations from BP.
Your sig is laughable given your childish left wing posts. The NLPC describes itself as promoting small government, which by definition makes them right leaning, so your expert investigation was not necessary.
Are you saying that if the US president gets a company off the hook because, if the allegation is correct, they contributed money to him, it is ok as long as the previous president did the same thing? Plenty of people did call attention to Bush admin. dealings with Halliburton. These guys happen to be calling out Obama's dealings with Google.
You are just jealous. All three people you mentioned created multi-billion companies out of nothing, employed hundreds of thousands of people, paid billions in taxes. They have each had more influence on your life than just about anybody else except perhaps your parents. Maybe you are right about the narcissism but it takes obsessive, driven types to do what they did even if they might not be the nicest people to hang out with.
Maybe tabloids, so wildly popular in the UK, could franchise in the US. National Enquirer quality journalism combined with bad puns in every single headline = win.
I think you might be overestimating the quality of TV in the UK. The most popular shows are of the same brain-dead kind like in the US, reality shows, soaps, cooking shows and sports. The most watched shows these days are roughly in order: BBC: Eastenders (dumb soap), Strictly Come Dancing (celebrities dancing), The Aprentice, Master Chef, Match of the Day (Soccer). ITV: X Factor and Coronation Street (dumb soap), with X Factor far and away the leader with about 13 mil. viewers. How's that for people who know things? Yes there are some quality shows, mostly on BBC (which doesn't have to worry about paying bills), but not many people watch them.
She also said she supports burning Korans because it contributes to global warming. She is trying to be funny and controversial and, particularly, as politically incorrect as possible but under the surface she often makes a good point. To take everything she says literally though is crazy.
Say you were actually selling the songs you downloaded and you charge $0.99 each. You sell 10,000 of them, so you have made $10,000. The publishers lose $10,000. Does $4.95 still seem a fair penalty? From the publishers' perspective it doesn't matter thet you were giving them for free, their loss is arguably still the same, or at least they are entitled to claim so.
Great, I didn't know there were North Koreans on here. Your pigeon must be fast if you managed to post only an hour and a half after the story was posted.
If you own your business, you benefit from a good local state-ran school because your employees, customers and suppliers send their children there.
What country (planet?) do you live in that has good state-ran schools? As for the state of public schools in the USA, please watch Waiting For Superman, it should be playing at your local theater.
If there were no state-ran schools your employees would demand greater remuneration, your suppliers greater profits and your customers would buy less because they would have the additional expense of schooling.
They pay for schooling one way or another. Who do you think pays for public schools?
Slashdot Mirror
You need to put it his comments in context. She said that UK politicians have no right to comment on things like stoning of women in Iran, presumably because that's a Muslim thing and she's a "political correctness" extremist who would sooner allow an innocent teenager to die a horrible death than dare insult precious male Muslim feelings. He shouldn't have even apologized, never mind get arrested. It's obviously a sarcastic response to her comments and in no way an incitement to violence.
Who would you buy such a thing from?
Easy, the government should auction them, just like unoccupied land was auctioned off. If someone broadcast on a frequency in a certain area where you own the exclusive right you can sue them. No different than it is now, it is illegal for you to broadcast on a frequency "leased" by someone.
As for the airwaves, please tell me how any one person can own a frequency. Now tell me how you are going to get permission from every single property owner to beam stuff onto his property. Or do you think that anyone should be allowed to beam radiation anywhere they like? Radio waves are not like normal property, they can't be. They are a shared resource by their very nature.
Of course you cannot own radio waves but you could own (and buy and sell) an exclusive right to use a particular frequency. Why not? It's really not any different from the right to own land (a shared limited resource) and we have laws that manage that. To use the example I read somewhere (Friedman I think) Opera houses are a limited resource as not everybody who wants to sing in an Opera house can do so. Therefore should government take over Opera houses and ration them with conditions attached? After all Opera houses are build on a limited resource we all share (in this case land, it could be radio frequencies). But it is not land or radio frequencies that give value to the Opera House/radio station. It is the work the owners put into it by building and running the opera house or the infrastructure to make programing and broadcast possible that give it value. Otherwise its just a bunch of dirt/unused frequency bands.
Despite its reputation for secrecy and technical expertise, ... virtually all of the methods the NSA uses for development and information assurance are publicly known.
Secrecy doesn't have to extend to every single thing. I'm sure NSA uses regular toilets too, not the top secret kind. As for reputation for technical expertise, how does using tried and tested development methods goes against that?
How about, since we the people own the airwaves and just lease them out to corporations, we require those corporations to give every politician who raises X number of signatures free airtime?
"people own the airwaves" part is a special kind of bullshit but that's a whole other discussion. As for your "idea" of, presumably, banning private campaign funding and instead giving access to airwaves based on number of signatures. Where does it say in the constitution that the freedom of speech is limited to those who gather X number of signature? How can they gather X number of signatures if they don't have access to airwaves and therefore cannot promote their cause until they get them. How many signatures will be required? Too many and the government effectively prohibits the rise of new political parties (no potential for abuse there at all). Too few and you give a national platform to neo-nazis, communists, religious fundamentalists etc.
Ha, ha, good old ad hominem, just another way of admitting that you've lost the argument. Note the pathetically childish and uncivil behavior by the left towards the Tea Party candidates and Conservatives in general throughout the last election campaign. It worked out really well.
He is the leading financier of the left in the US so why not him. Plus he's a true natural born slimy scumbag if there ever was one so we feel we are doing the world a favor even regardless of politics.
I don't lie, I might be wrong but if so I am honestly wrong. First of all, technically I am right because he just donated $1 million to them so they ARE financed by him. Secondly, you are being pretty naive if you think that overt donation directly from his pocket is the only kind there is. For example, Soros laughably claims that the donations made by his Open Society Institute are not actually made by him and it's a totally separate thing. OSI has spend over $5 billion over the years on liberal causes, including a lot of goups which in turn create or fund things like media matters. Without having time to research the matter, here is one example: OSI donates $1 million to The Tides Foundation in 2005. The Tides Foundation donates $1 million to Media Matters in 2005. Nothing to do with Soros, right?
Anybody donating to politicians is a potential problem, including individuals, lobby groups, unions etc. Why single out corporate shareholders as the only group not allowed to donate? The reality is that politicians need money to finance their campaigns and get their message out, otherwise democracy wouldn't work as you wouldn't have a clue who to vote for. The question is where the money should come from and the sad truth is that wherever it comes from there is potential for abuse. Financing campaigns with public money would be even worse. Btw, are you in favor of banning political contributions from unions? Good luck getting one Democrat to support that and yet it is not substantially different from contributions by corporate shareholders.
I never said political donations from corporations are a bad thing, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Corporations are made out of people, employees and shareholders, that's it. If the shareholders, who own a corporation, wish to donate their money to a political candidate why on Earth shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If the executives who are hired by the shareholders to run the corporation give the money without shareholders approval, they are free to fire them.
Ha, ha, you are quoting the article's quote of Obama spokesman. Please read from the begining:
"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees -- $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__071011_corporate_donations_.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742
Btw, since we are on the subject of Soros: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589
Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" center dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation" financed by a left wing billionaire George Soros (who by the way made his billions in currency speculations on a scale that bankrupted a country). Sounds fair and balanced to me.
Wow, when you get tired of foaming at the mouth about evil Republican "corporate masters" that you read so much about on huffington post and daily kos, maybe you'll realize that Democrats get more money in political contributions from corporations than Republicans do. To take one example, Obama was the biggest recipient of donations from BP.
Your sig is laughable given your childish left wing posts. The NLPC describes itself as promoting small government, which by definition makes them right leaning, so your expert investigation was not necessary.
Are you saying that if the US president gets a company off the hook because, if the allegation is correct, they contributed money to him, it is ok as long as the previous president did the same thing? Plenty of people did call attention to Bush admin. dealings with Halliburton. These guys happen to be calling out Obama's dealings with Google.
You are just jealous. All three people you mentioned created multi-billion companies out of nothing, employed hundreds of thousands of people, paid billions in taxes. They have each had more influence on your life than just about anybody else except perhaps your parents. Maybe you are right about the narcissism but it takes obsessive, driven types to do what they did even if they might not be the nicest people to hang out with.
Maybe tabloids, so wildly popular in the UK, could franchise in the US. National Enquirer quality journalism combined with bad puns in every single headline = win.
I think you might be overestimating the quality of TV in the UK. The most popular shows are of the same brain-dead kind like in the US, reality shows, soaps, cooking shows and sports. The most watched shows these days are roughly in order: BBC: Eastenders (dumb soap), Strictly Come Dancing (celebrities dancing), The Aprentice, Master Chef, Match of the Day (Soccer). ITV: X Factor and Coronation Street (dumb soap), with X Factor far and away the leader with about 13 mil. viewers. How's that for people who know things? Yes there are some quality shows, mostly on BBC (which doesn't have to worry about paying bills), but not many people watch them.
She also said she supports burning Korans because it contributes to global warming. She is trying to be funny and controversial and, particularly, as politically incorrect as possible but under the surface she often makes a good point. To take everything she says literally though is crazy.
I don't know if you realize it but you were acting like a thug in that comment.
Say you were actually selling the songs you downloaded and you charge $0.99 each. You sell 10,000 of them, so you have made $10,000. The publishers lose $10,000. Does $4.95 still seem a fair penalty? From the publishers' perspective it doesn't matter thet you were giving them for free, their loss is arguably still the same, or at least they are entitled to claim so.
Great, I didn't know there were North Koreans on here. Your pigeon must be fast if you managed to post only an hour and a half after the story was posted.
If you own your business, you benefit from a good local state-ran school because your employees, customers and suppliers send their children there.
What country (planet?) do you live in that has good state-ran schools? As for the state of public schools in the USA, please watch Waiting For Superman, it should be playing at your local theater.
If there were no state-ran schools your employees would demand greater remuneration, your suppliers greater profits and your customers would buy less because they would have the additional expense of schooling.
They pay for schooling one way or another. Who do you think pays for public schools?
When you are in a hole, stop digging. This applies more to her "lawyers" than to herself though.