Do you comprehend what a treaty is? Seriously. It is a treaty, a pact between sovereign nations. Each individual country gets to approve or disapprove of a treaty. That is how the things work.
They tried the treaty approach because the governments could not coerce their people enough to vote for the constitution. A majority in those places asked said they did not want the constitution.
Are all Eurofascists as utterly stupid as you are?
How? Insisting that people do NOT get to vote is democratic? How? A bunch of politicians, the majority of whom have not read the document either, voting on something AGAINST the the will of the people is democratic? How?
Seriously. By what ass-raped definition of "democracy" can you possibly define what they are doing as democracy?
"playing the victim so you don't have to be responsible"
A good summary of the modus operandi of leftists generally. I'll keep it in mind.
I find it interesting that you actually have not bothered to try to refute that the Fairness Doctrine was used to suppress political opposition. So, little baby, care to do so?
When the assertion is made that the media is liberal, it is with regards to the press and their reporting. I suspect that you know this, but acknowledging it would put a damper on your lolcatz level post.
"the politicians aren't going to budge by the looks of it"
This surprises you? The EU Constitution was routinely rejected in Europe, so they call it a treaty to get around that pesky voting thing. Then Ireland's people get to vote on it and reject it, so despite the requirement that it be unanimous, they have no intentions of stopping.
One: Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Two: In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
Me again: The way it worked was if anyone offered a political editorial on the airwaves, the opposition got free time to state their case. So if you had, say, Rush Limbaugh on your station, you would have to eat the cost of airing three hours of anti-Rush.
By November 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide, the Democrats' "fairness" campaign was considered a stunning success. The effort had produced 1,035 letters to stations, resulting in 1,678 hours of free airtime. Critical to the campaign was the fact that much of the partisan commentary came from small, rural stations. In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
And: Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Quote One: Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Quote Two: In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
While this post if far too far down for anyone to notice, I'd like to say that this is a great thing, Ubuntu being sold in a brick and mortar store.
One of the paradoxes about things being free is that people are far less likely to stick with something that does not instantly work for them when it is free than if they pay even a nominal amount for it. Magazines which are free cannot charge as much as those that are not free because people are less inclined to read the ads in a free publication than one that costs money.
Linux is different from Windows. There will be new things to learn. The rather nominal cost of $20 now (with free upgrades forever) may get some people to stick with it long enough to get over that initial hurdle. If someone just gave them a CD, they may or may not try it out and will most likely give up rather quickly.
No one has pointed out that one of the people who installed Ubuntu switched from Mac OS X, reputedly the friendlies OS ever, and he likes Ubuntu.
I remember reading of a program that studied the effects of teaching Latin. Not only did they do better in English, they also did better in history. Naturally, the program was cancelled.
"What is a totem and WTF does it have to do with playing media?"
What's a Google? What's a Yahoo!? What's a WinAmp? What's a Slashdot? What's a Firefox? What's an eBay? What's a NewEgg? What's a Lightwave? What's a Nero? What's an Outlook Express? What's a Visual Studio? What's an AutoCAD?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you comprehend what a treaty is? Seriously. It is a treaty, a pact between sovereign nations. Each individual country gets to approve or disapprove of a treaty. That is how the things work.
They tried the treaty approach because the governments could not coerce their people enough to vote for the constitution. A majority in those places asked said they did not want the constitution.
Are all Eurofascists as utterly stupid as you are?
How?
Insisting that people do NOT get to vote is democratic? How?
A bunch of politicians, the majority of whom have not read the document either, voting on something AGAINST the the will of the people is democratic? How?
Seriously. By what ass-raped definition of "democracy" can you possibly define what they are doing as democracy?
A joke on democracy? Are you kidding me? Individual parlimentary approval is *more* democratic than a national *referendum*?
The way the European governments are going about this is ANTI-democratic.
"playing the victim so you don't have to be responsible"
A good summary of the modus operandi of leftists generally. I'll keep it in mind.
I find it interesting that you actually have not bothered to try to refute that the Fairness Doctrine was used to suppress political opposition. So, little baby, care to do so?
That made me laugh, so its a deal.
That's the best you can come up with? Seriously?
When the assertion is made that the media is liberal, it is with regards to the press and their reporting. I suspect that you know this, but acknowledging it would put a damper on your lolcatz level post.
"the politicians aren't going to budge by the looks of it"
This surprises you? The EU Constitution was routinely rejected in Europe, so they call it a treaty to get around that pesky voting thing. Then Ireland's people get to vote on it and reject it, so despite the requirement that it be unanimous, they have no intentions of stopping.
Two quotes I've posted already on this topic, excerpted from https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270.html:
One:
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Two:
In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
Me again:
The way it worked was if anyone offered a political editorial on the airwaves, the opposition got free time to state their case. So if you had, say, Rush Limbaugh on your station, you would have to eat the cost of airing three hours of anti-Rush.
Here are some quotes for you:
By November 1964, when Johnson beat Goldwater in a landslide, the Democrats' "fairness" campaign was considered a stunning success. The effort had produced 1,035 letters to stations, resulting in 1,678 hours of free airtime. Critical to the campaign was the fact that much of the partisan commentary came from small, rural stations. In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
And:
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Quote One:
Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of commerce under President Kennedy, noted, "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters in the hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."
Quote Two:
In a confidential report to the DNC, Martin Firestone, a Washington attorney and former FCC staffer, explained,
"The right-wingers operate on a strictly cash basis and it is for this reason that they are carried by so many small stations. Were our efforts to be continued on a year-round basis, we would find that many of these stations would consider the broadcasts of these programs bothersome and burdensome (especially if they are ultimately required to give us free time) and would start dropping the programs from their broadcast schedule."
https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270.html
Cited.
If it were left, it would refer to "undocumented workers" rather than "illegal aliens."
While this post if far too far down for anyone to notice, I'd like to say that this is a great thing, Ubuntu being sold in a brick and mortar store.
One of the paradoxes about things being free is that people are far less likely to stick with something that does not instantly work for them when it is free than if they pay even a nominal amount for it. Magazines which are free cannot charge as much as those that are not free because people are less inclined to read the ads in a free publication than one that costs money.
Linux is different from Windows. There will be new things to learn. The rather nominal cost of $20 now (with free upgrades forever) may get some people to stick with it long enough to get over that initial hurdle. If someone just gave them a CD, they may or may not try it out and will most likely give up rather quickly.
No one has pointed out that one of the people who installed Ubuntu switched from Mac OS X, reputedly the friendlies OS ever, and he likes Ubuntu.
I remember reading of a program that studied the effects of teaching Latin. Not only did they do better in English, they also did better in history. Naturally, the program was cancelled.
Bah, you could upload yours on a 33.6 dial up in twenty minutes. :)
As you will notice, the poster was correct. There was nothing insightful about the post.
Please don't tell anyone...
Metropolis is an excellent movie and now there will be more of it for me to see. This is pretty damn cool.
Perhaps he is Sigismund and above the rules of grammar.
"little silicon babies"
*tsk* *tsk*
They are called child processes.
P.S. Why the hell would someone mod parent as "Redundant"?
"At what point does centralizing and/or delegating operational authority over so much of our lives become a dangerous practice of its own?"
About seventy years ago.
And the idle rich and poor would come together, in the spirit of harmony, to laugh and mock.
Or it could be Nero, the emperor, lighting a ROM, the spaceknight, action figure on fire... :)
apt-get -f install calm_the_hell_down_people :)
I suppose now we know why you were not clever enough to figure out what xine is.
"What is a totem and WTF does it have to do with playing media?"
What's a Google?
What's a Yahoo!?
What's a WinAmp?
What's a Slashdot?
What's a Firefox?
What's an eBay?
What's a NewEgg?
What's a Lightwave?
What's a Nero?
What's an Outlook Express?
What's a Visual Studio?
What's an AutoCAD?
With names like these, no one will ever use them.