I know the show is funny, and I always enjoyed the side themes. But the main theme of "Who is Frasier or Roz fucking now?" was just sooooooo boring.
Cut out that part, give me more Daphne, and I would watch it all day. Hell, even Eddie was more interesting than Frasier.
By the way, for some reason, "grammar" is one word I never spell correctly the first time. I misspelled it above on purpose, to go with the wrong usage of 'begs the question', just to see which got a hit. Your response was great, as well as original. Thanks.
I used to use NoScript, but it was a pain in the ass to post comments anywhere so now I just have it on my laptop. It's old and slow, so I don't want to waste its time on whatever NoScript removes.
A couple months ago I chewed out Yahoo News for that shit. But theirs wasn't at the top of the page, or over in the right corner. Basically I said "What fucking asshole put an auto-playing video 12 screens down from the top of the page? You fucking morons."
I might have gotten their attention, because I don't remember seeing one like that since.
You must have an old, out of date version of FF. I just tried and got the new Playschool menu that FF has. There are arrows, and a cute little star, but no option to stop loading a video.
We get most of our produce from the backyard (mostly root vegetables and citrus this time of year), and keep a small flock of chickens for eggs. How do we find the time? We don't have a cable TV subscription.
It's also how you find the money to do so.
Too many here "can't live without" expensive entertainment packages.
It's gotta be better than the shitstorm we are living in right now with the Democrats and Republicans in charge of it all.
I don't agree with the Green Party on much, but at least I think the people have some honor left in them. I agree with the Libertarians on a few more things, but still think most of them are either simply nuts or, as someone put it years ago, cry-baby born-again tax-dodgers. But at least they want to leave me alone in my daily life.
So get them to form a partnership to take control from the current mess if fools, and let them have a shot. Literally, it can't hurt more than we are facing now.
There is a difference between "free speech" and "words falling out of your mouth". The word "apple" is not speech; without some important context, it is a single word. The sentence "Everyone should eat apples for health." is speech.
However, it isn't just about whether a sentence was spoken. Telling lies about someone is not regarded as free speech, even though it may be words spoken as sentences.
That is what smothers your post in your proverbial failsauce. The fact that you can't tell the difference between something that is simply sounds produced by human mouths, and something that is meant to convey a person's views and beliefs.
To apply that nuance to physical weapons is nonsensical. A sword is 'an arm' in the 'armament' sense of the word. So is a bow and arrow, a slingshot, a rifle, and a Bradley tank. Your argument would mean that since paperclips can be used as a weapon, the government cannot take away my paperclips.
But fine, let's go with your interpretation. All laws against slander, libel, shouting "fire", etc, are hereby judged Unconstitutional. As are all laws infringing on the right to keep and bear all types of weapons. All this hypocrisy is removed once and for all.
Honestly, I would not mind that tradeoff. Would you?
As a military veteran, I would love to see that part of the Constitution brought back to life. Pare the military down to what it should be, a group of officers and senior enlisted with young recruits that they train, who then stand guard at our embassies. If someone invades the US, train a whole lot more.
FDR wasn't for the "weaponisation of civil society" when he had over one hundred thousand American citizens sent to concentration camps.
The Progressives were for eugenics and sterilization of the "undesirables of society", which included the infirm and blacks. They also were not pro-guns.
Actually, I can't think of any pro-gun people who are for the weaponisation of civil society. They simply want you to keep your hands off their Constitutionally protected property. If you choose not to have guns yourself, they don't care.
I read a short story a few years ago that postulated a similar situation.
What if Germany had won the war? They would take all Britain's possessions, including India. Gandhi thought he could peacefully coerce the Germans into freeing India. The German commander had him shot.
I guess you never heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Many things were considered constitutional before he rose as a leader to show they were not. He violated many laws to show they were not only 'not fair', but unconstitutional as well. Most people today agree with his power to interpret the Constitution in this regard.
No, yelling "fire" is not free speech. It is simply making a noise, with the intent to either save lives, if there is a burning theater, or cause harm otherwise.
Speech is used to convey your ideas and beliefs to others.
Your viewpoint would mean bank robbers can't be prosecuted, because their hold-up note is protected by the First Amendment. Prosecuting them for robbing the bank violates their rights of demanding cash, using either their freedom or speech or of the press.
If anyone could tell the writers of the Constitution how stupid their descendants were going to be about interpreting their clear intentions, they never would have written the document to begin with. They would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation as the lesser of two evils.
As long as those sources are FOX News, or any other place that doesn't love Obama. Or are you not the person who just said to stop watching one particular source of news?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, MC Hammer built my house for me.
Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to touch it.
Oh god, please save me from that! ;^)
I know the show is funny, and I always enjoyed the side themes. But the main theme of "Who is Frasier or Roz fucking now?" was just sooooooo boring.
Cut out that part, give me more Daphne, and I would watch it all day. Hell, even Eddie was more interesting than Frasier.
By the way, for some reason, "grammar" is one word I never spell correctly the first time. I misspelled it above on purpose, to go with the wrong usage of 'begs the question', just to see which got a hit. Your response was great, as well as original. Thanks.
Oh-oh. Apparently I offended someone. Excuse me while I make atonement by buying a product from a female-led company.
I've seen pictures of her tits, and they are nice big'uns. But it takes a lot more than that to get me to spend money on something.
I used to use NoScript, but it was a pain in the ass to post comments anywhere so now I just have it on my laptop. It's old and slow, so I don't want to waste its time on whatever NoScript removes.
I have it paused at 1:06 right now, just because I got tired of hearing her voice by then.
It looks like she could give a good blowjob, but she'd be whiney about it first.
A couple months ago I chewed out Yahoo News for that shit. But theirs wasn't at the top of the page, or over in the right corner. Basically I said "What fucking asshole put an auto-playing video 12 screens down from the top of the page? You fucking morons."
I might have gotten their attention, because I don't remember seeing one like that since.
You must have an old, out of date version of FF. I just tried and got the new Playschool menu that FF has. There are arrows, and a cute little star, but no option to stop loading a video.
Well, that just begs the question "What is proper grammer?"
We get most of our produce from the backyard (mostly root vegetables and citrus this time of year), and keep a small flock of chickens for eggs. How do we find the time? We don't have a cable TV subscription.
It's also how you find the money to do so.
Too many here "can't live without" expensive entertainment packages.
It's gotta be better than the shitstorm we are living in right now with the Democrats and Republicans in charge of it all.
I don't agree with the Green Party on much, but at least I think the people have some honor left in them. I agree with the Libertarians on a few more things, but still think most of them are either simply nuts or, as someone put it years ago, cry-baby born-again tax-dodgers. But at least they want to leave me alone in my daily life.
So get them to form a partnership to take control from the current mess if fools, and let them have a shot. Literally, it can't hurt more than we are facing now.
There is a difference between "free speech" and "words falling out of your mouth". The word "apple" is not speech; without some important context, it is a single word. The sentence "Everyone should eat apples for health." is speech.
However, it isn't just about whether a sentence was spoken. Telling lies about someone is not regarded as free speech, even though it may be words spoken as sentences.
That is what smothers your post in your proverbial failsauce. The fact that you can't tell the difference between something that is simply sounds produced by human mouths, and something that is meant to convey a person's views and beliefs.
To apply that nuance to physical weapons is nonsensical. A sword is 'an arm' in the 'armament' sense of the word. So is a bow and arrow, a slingshot, a rifle, and a Bradley tank. Your argument would mean that since paperclips can be used as a weapon, the government cannot take away my paperclips.
But fine, let's go with your interpretation. All laws against slander, libel, shouting "fire", etc, are hereby judged Unconstitutional. As are all laws infringing on the right to keep and bear all types of weapons. All this hypocrisy is removed once and for all.
Honestly, I would not mind that tradeoff. Would you?
You don't want to see anything like the country described in the Constitution. Why pretend?
As a military veteran, I would love to see that part of the Constitution brought back to life. Pare the military down to what it should be, a group of officers and senior enlisted with young recruits that they train, who then stand guard at our embassies. If someone invades the US, train a whole lot more.
FDR wasn't for the "weaponisation of civil society" when he had over one hundred thousand American citizens sent to concentration camps.
The Progressives were for eugenics and sterilization of the "undesirables of society", which included the infirm and blacks. They also were not pro-guns.
Actually, I can't think of any pro-gun people who are for the weaponisation of civil society. They simply want you to keep your hands off their Constitutionally protected property. If you choose not to have guns yourself, they don't care.
I read a short story a few years ago that postulated a similar situation.
What if Germany had won the war? They would take all Britain's possessions, including India. Gandhi thought he could peacefully coerce the Germans into freeing India. The German commander had him shot.
I forget the author and the title, but googling just now reveals this story by Harry Turtledove that is probably it.
Thank you for the answer.
I guess you never heard of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Many things were considered constitutional before he rose as a leader to show they were not. He violated many laws to show they were not only 'not fair', but unconstitutional as well. Most people today agree with his power to interpret the Constitution in this regard.
Why don't you?
No, yelling "fire" is not free speech. It is simply making a noise, with the intent to either save lives, if there is a burning theater, or cause harm otherwise.
Speech is used to convey your ideas and beliefs to others.
Your viewpoint would mean bank robbers can't be prosecuted, because their hold-up note is protected by the First Amendment. Prosecuting them for robbing the bank violates their rights of demanding cash, using either their freedom or speech or of the press.
If anyone could tell the writers of the Constitution how stupid their descendants were going to be about interpreting their clear intentions, they never would have written the document to begin with. They would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation as the lesser of two evils.
So you do watch Fox News? Or does that channel feed your bias?
Honestly, I don't know what your argument is.
Sometimes "gentle giant" is used too.
There are none. That's why you should balance two opposite ones with each other.
See sig.
Thank you.
As long as those sources are FOX News, or any other place that doesn't love Obama. Or are you not the person who just said to stop watching one particular source of news?
But aybiss would force every to agree with himself, or be treated as a terrorist. So what's the difference?