It's more like setting up a site called drugdealers.com where people post advertisements on where to buy drugs. You can defend your "but the site is only giving address where to buy drugs, I'm not selling any!" all you want, but it wont hold up in court.
Terrible metaphor. It's more like setting up a site called streetaddresses.com where people post addresses of many places. You can defend your "but the site is only giving user-posted addresses, I'm not responsible if some of those addresses contain illegal materials - nor can it reasonably be my responsibility to check every address that's listed on my site to determine what, if any, illegal activities are taking place" all you want, and it might hold up in court. Or it might not, but it sure as hell seems like a reasonable defense to me.
In before "copyright infringement is theft", moral majority outrage, "if you have nothing to hide", etc
What part of the constitution actually authorizes them to do this?
I'm pretty sure it's the part that says corporations are legal individuals with the right to market products without regulation, and which right shall not be infringed on first amendment grounds.
It's the part right after the "money is speech" bit, I believe.
Watch as they try to use the "to pay for the increased health costs" as an excuse to tax the shit out of it like cigarettes
Gosh, that would be terrible. It would almost be like, some kind of extra tax on a product that is purely a luxury item.
And you say this money could go towards people who I don't personally know getting basic preventative health care and medical treatment? What kind of society do we live in, that we could be oppressed this way! It's like those bigwigs in Washington think we've signed some kind of contract to live in a special society or something.
I, for one, am outraged. I will be tweeting my dismay shortly, and I assure you the CNN blog will also be getting an earful.
Or more recently watch "In The Loop" if you can find it outside the UK.
It played around the US in Landmark Theatres, a big chain of independent film theaters. The whole movie had me crying from laughter and laughing in pain. I'm sure it will be available on Netflix soon.
Do you really think that it takes a law to squelch anonymity on the Internet? All it really takes is money and sometimes not even that. Users of the Internet should get over the notion of anonymity. It does not exist. If you are not willing to stand by the statements you make on the Internet, don't make them, because you WILL be found out who you really are, if someone wants to know badly enough.
Yeah, believe Armin Weisheit when he says it - because it's just as true where he is in London as it is here in the US.
It's a shame that so many people in the US think that "free speech" means "I can say anything I want".
I'd like to add another restriction on free speech while we're at it: Saying "It's a shame," like you just did in that poor, pitiful Jessica Fletcher head-shake kind of way we use to describe and condescend to those who aren't as informed.
I'd also make an addendum - anyone suggesting ways to further curtail free speech should spend a year with their lips sewn together.
But, um... not until after I finish this post, okay guys?
Fox News news casts have reported on many non-partisan issues. It's not only possible that they've reported on things in a fair and balanced way, it's incredibly likely. If you amend your statement to talk about reporting political stories in a fair and balanced way, I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.
Although I understand your point, my experience with Fox News is that they take every story and turn it into a political issue. They use political language, often using actual conservative talking points, and every story serves the political agenda of News Corp.
Having said all that, I don't spend very much time watching Fox News, so it is certainly possible they do in fact have non-partisan reporting. I am not actually asserting that they are never fair or balanced, I was asking the GP ArcherB to post links to footage that showed an example.
As others have noted, your links do not support your claims, and I don't feel the need to respond further.
I am still waiting for a link to a clip of a news segment on Fox News of one minute or more that could, by a reasonable observer, be seen as either fair or balanced.
Maybe I'm all turned around on this topic, and I'm willing to consider your implication if you can provide even a single example of impartial reporting.
Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.
I don't, but I'm guessing the modern tactics are working better for them. I would be so relieved if we could get back into the land of legitimate debate and discourse in US politics, but I don't think it's in the cards for a while yet.
If this were a page mocking Obama's race and accentuating certain facial features, you Captain Crunch wannabes would be screaming racism and launching denial of service attacks on the site. But because Glenn is a conservative, it's ok to accuse him of this disgusting act. Glenn is exposing both political party's dirty laundry, and he is getting results. The crooked czars have come to light only because of Glenn Beck.
Hey hey hey now! I don't think anyone here is accusing Mr Beck of these horrifying crimes against that poor woman in 1990. I know I'm not, and I don't personally even believe they're true!
I think people are mostly just asking, not that they believe it either, that if he was not involved then why wouldn't he want to deny it? And of course, if he won't deny it, and he's trying to take down the website that just asks the question, what could that mean?
Certainly not that he either raped or murdered some girl in 1990. I really don't think anyone is saying that.
That's a horrible domain name. I think anybody would try to get that website domain removed (and anything associated with it) if their name was used in it, whether or not they did anything.
I agree completely. Whether or not Glenn Beck raped and then murdered a girl in 1990, he has every right to want to take down a website devoted to that topic.
I, for one, don't find it at all surprising that he wouldn't want people out there asking him about a rape and murder that took place in 1990 in which he has not, to my knowledge, denied involvement.
(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)
Although I don't think she denies it, I find it very hard to believe that Ann Coulter is a transsexual.
Wow. Glenn Beck makes you think. So, uh, does coffee put you to sleep?
Maybe he just means that Glenn Beck forces him to think the things Glenn Beck tells him? It's the only parsing of the sentence that makes sense.
And I'll agree with the GP, Glenn Beck definitely makes me crack up - I can feel myself cracking up every time I watch a clip of his show. I'd watch more often, but I can't afford a regular supply of anti-psychotics.
Slashdot Mirror
It's more like setting up a site called drugdealers.com where people post advertisements on where to buy drugs. You can defend your "but the site is only giving address where to buy drugs, I'm not selling any!" all you want, but it wont hold up in court.
Terrible metaphor. It's more like setting up a site called streetaddresses.com where people post addresses of many places. You can defend your "but the site is only giving user-posted addresses, I'm not responsible if some of those addresses contain illegal materials - nor can it reasonably be my responsibility to check every address that's listed on my site to determine what, if any, illegal activities are taking place" all you want, and it might hold up in court. Or it might not, but it sure as hell seems like a reasonable defense to me.
In before "copyright infringement is theft", moral majority outrage, "if you have nothing to hide", etc
What part of the constitution actually authorizes them to do this?
I'm pretty sure it's the part that says corporations are legal individuals with the right to market products without regulation, and which right shall not be infringed on first amendment grounds.
It's the part right after the "money is speech" bit, I believe.
Watch as they try to use the "to pay for the increased health costs" as an excuse to tax the shit out of it like cigarettes
Gosh, that would be terrible. It would almost be like, some kind of extra tax on a product that is purely a luxury item.
And you say this money could go towards people who I don't personally know getting basic preventative health care and medical treatment? What kind of society do we live in, that we could be oppressed this way! It's like those bigwigs in Washington think we've signed some kind of contract to live in a special society or something.
I, for one, am outraged. I will be tweeting my dismay shortly, and I assure you the CNN blog will also be getting an earful.
more to the point, am I breaking the law by making mead with coffee in place of plain water?
I'm pretty sure you're cool as long as you aren't selling it.
Let me rephrase that: coffee-based mead is a vile idea. Your drink is bad and you should feel bad.
=3
Go try to die or have any permanent effect by smoking as much pot
You are going to wind up with lung cancer and emphysema.
Smoking pot is not linked to lung cancer.
If you use a vaporizer (as the GP suggested) you definitely reduce, and possibly eliminate, the risk of emphysema.
Try again?
I was even shooting for funny, I didn't expect to be taken this seriously.
What, mods can't make jokes too? I think the insightful mod is very funny - as it was clearly intended to be.
Anyway I wouldn't eat people, but I could go for some Spaaaaace Meaaat!
Or more recently watch "In The Loop" if you can find it outside the UK.
It played around the US in Landmark Theatres, a big chain of independent film theaters. The whole movie had me crying from laughter and laughing in pain. I'm sure it will be available on Netflix soon.
And it's "TPS Report"
Just an FYI
Blatant and pathetic attempt at an informative mod.
Reminds me of how Pepsi was originally made in 1893, and was named "Brad's Drink".
[standard disclaimer regarding mention of drug use: Honey, if you're reading this, you know daddy's kidding, right?]
Hypocrite!
Hey, at least he's an honest hypocrite, AC!
What is this "leave the house" of which you speak? What possible purpose could it serve?
I think it relates to that procreative stuff they taught us about in middle school. Horrid business. Fluids, and whatnot.
I wish I had mod points. Eepok, you are entirely correct, but the corrupt always rule the day.
Then let's make the DVDs out of water! Oh wait...
I was going to suggest dihydrogen monoxide, but that stuff is probably too toxic for consumer use.
from Muad'Dib?
No, just his stilsuit.
The director's commentary is to die for.
Yeah, I think I read a review in Slate. It's supposed to be very gritty.
...names on the internet should be revealed....
Do you really think that it takes a law to squelch anonymity on the Internet? All it really takes is money and sometimes not even that. Users of the Internet should get over the notion of anonymity. It does not exist. If you are not willing to stand by the statements you make on the Internet, don't make them, because you WILL be found out who you really are, if someone wants to know badly enough.
Yeah, believe Armin Weisheit when he says it - because it's just as true where he is in London as it is here in the US.
It's a shame that so many people in the US think that "free speech" means "I can say anything I want".
I'd like to add another restriction on free speech while we're at it: Saying "It's a shame," like you just did in that poor, pitiful Jessica Fletcher head-shake kind of way we use to describe and condescend to those who aren't as informed.
I'd also make an addendum - anyone suggesting ways to further curtail free speech should spend a year with their lips sewn together.
But, um... not until after I finish this post, okay guys?
Zerg rush.
Spawn more overlords.
Fox News news casts have reported on many non-partisan issues. It's not only possible that they've reported on things in a fair and balanced way, it's incredibly likely. If you amend your statement to talk about reporting political stories in a fair and balanced way, I'd be much more inclined to agree with you.
Although I understand your point, my experience with Fox News is that they take every story and turn it into a political issue. They use political language, often using actual conservative talking points, and every story serves the political agenda of News Corp.
Having said all that, I don't spend very much time watching Fox News, so it is certainly possible they do in fact have non-partisan reporting. I am not actually asserting that they are never fair or balanced, I was asking the GP ArcherB to post links to footage that showed an example.
He has, thus far, not done so.
As others have noted, your links do not support your claims, and I don't feel the need to respond further.
I am still waiting for a link to a clip of a news segment on Fox News of one minute or more that could, by a reasonable observer, be seen as either fair or balanced.
Maybe I'm all turned around on this topic, and I'm willing to consider your implication if you can provide even a single example of impartial reporting.
Does anyone here remember when conservatism in America had truly intellectual proponents like Russell Kirk and William Buckley--guys who graduated from college and wrote serious polemics? Hard to believe they once weren't just a bunch of brain-dead, cackling circus buffoons.
I don't, but I'm guessing the modern tactics are working better for them. I would be so relieved if we could get back into the land of legitimate debate and discourse in US politics, but I don't think it's in the cards for a while yet.
If this were a page mocking Obama's race and accentuating certain facial features, you Captain Crunch wannabes would be screaming racism and launching denial of service attacks on the site. But because Glenn is a conservative, it's ok to accuse him of this disgusting act. Glenn is exposing both political party's dirty laundry, and he is getting results. The crooked czars have come to light only because of Glenn Beck.
Hey hey hey now! I don't think anyone here is accusing Mr Beck of these horrifying crimes against that poor woman in 1990. I know I'm not, and I don't personally even believe they're true!
I think people are mostly just asking, not that they believe it either, that if he was not involved then why wouldn't he want to deny it? And of course, if he won't deny it, and he's trying to take down the website that just asks the question, what could that mean?
Certainly not that he either raped or murdered some girl in 1990. I really don't think anyone is saying that.
As a conservative I generally find him to be embarrassing.
Isn't he technically libertarian? So you don't need to be embarrassed by him!
I'm a raving liberal, but I'm embarrassed by him on the grounds that he reflects badly on me as a human being.
That's a horrible domain name. I think anybody would try to get that website domain removed (and anything associated with it) if their name was used in it, whether or not they did anything.
I agree completely. Whether or not Glenn Beck raped and then murdered a girl in 1990, he has every right to want to take down a website devoted to that topic.
I, for one, don't find it at all surprising that he wouldn't want people out there asking him about a rape and murder that took place in 1990 in which he has not, to my knowledge, denied involvement.
(this same sort of thing was tried with Ann Coulter, because she does the same shit. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere because people actually believed she was a transsexual.)
Although I don't think she denies it, I find it very hard to believe that Ann Coulter is a transsexual.
Wow. Glenn Beck makes you think. So, uh, does coffee put you to sleep?
Maybe he just means that Glenn Beck forces him to think the things Glenn Beck tells him? It's the only parsing of the sentence that makes sense.
And I'll agree with the GP, Glenn Beck definitely makes me crack up - I can feel myself cracking up every time I watch a clip of his show. I'd watch more often, but I can't afford a regular supply of anti-psychotics.