No, you can always quote your opponent. Also, anything you write or say has copyright. You don't need to file for it in America, it is automatic. But copyright does not stop fair use, such as quoting for critique, or parody. Free speech should not trump copyright, if you believe in the founders ideals of promoting the arts and sciences, except in the ways already noted.
If you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. Your lack of evidence does not make a very good case, that's the simple fact that I am pointing out. History has taught me to deeply distrust people who make claims with no evidence.
Copyright is part of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Copyright does not infringe on free speech. You can say whatever you like without having to use someone else's art to do so.
What first set of rules were broken? There were no rules, that's the point. There was no such thing as credit default swaps, or even derivatives, before the 1990s.
There are no contradictions, read the Constitution. You can say whatever you like without having to quote someone else to do it. Do you really think freedom of speech trumps copyright? That's laughably stupid. I could legally distribute Avatar by tacking on 'Republicans Suck!' at the end. Please engage your brain before making remarks that, with a moment's thought, you would realize are ludicrous.
I'm not here to fucking mollycoddle idiots with an agenda and a sack of lies. If you don't like it, fuck you in your free speech hole.
Uh, wrong. You don't understand how copyright works. Artists maintain control over their works and can not be forced to distribute licenses. Please, though, cite a source showing how anyone can play anything they like without the artists' consent.
Weird Al is protected because his works are clearly parody, but even so he does the right thing and seeks permission. Unlike the Republicans you are trying, and failing, to defend.
Democrats don't infringe copyright, plain and simple. If they ever had, the Republicans would make hay over it, but they haven't so, your attribution is false.
Please explain how the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans. Go ahead, I'll wait. See, the thing the right wing liars forget, is that all this information is out there and easily available on the Internet, so the lies are incredibly easy to refute.
The CRA does not give the government powers to force banks to make bad loans, sorry to burst your bubble.
I am here to keep you honest, too. And I'm doing a far better job of it than you are, my friend. You won't win in that regard, because you see, I already keep myself honest, while you, evidently, do not. I do not live in a right wing echo chamber where bald faced lies are amplified and repeated until the entire cult thinks that black is white.
Talking points? I'm sorry, I don't do talking points. Was the phrase 'fat cats' on some kind of list you could point to as official 'talking points?'
Assign blame to the blame-worthy and we won't have a problem. Blame the wrong people, and I'll continue to correct you. If government is at all to blame, it is Bush and the Republicans, and it's only political theater if you disagree with it. The Republicans like to pretend to populism, but financial reform is a popular issue, people support it, but the Republicans can't, for two reasons: 1.) they can't let Obama have any more wins, period. The more wins he racks up, the less electable any of them are. 2.) Republicans are in the pockets of big business, that is their constituency. They will not betray them.
As for Glass-Steagall and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal, lets look at the voting breakdown, shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png Yeah, what were you saying again? Just as an aside, I have to say thank you, personally, for letting me mop the floor with you in debates again and again, it really makes my day. It's almost as though you enjoy being my bitch in public.
Bullshit, you can't use copyrighted material in a political ad or speech without paying for it. Period.
All the rest of your post is a similar worthless obfuscation and appeal to emotion. If you want to make outrageous contra-factual claims, back them up with, oh I don't know, the relevant passages from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Political speech enjoys higher levels of protection, but misuse of copyrighted works is not a free speech issue. It is a, oh what's the word, copyright issue. You do understand that, in order to work at all, copyright trumps free speech, except in limited circumstances like fair use and parody.
It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.
No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess. It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans, despite what certain professional liars may have told you. Sure, the government could have done more to regulate the ridiculous financial instruments invented in the last ten years or so, but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question. Obama did carry on Bush's lame bailout policies, but he also added more oversight, despite Republicans screaming 'socialism' about the oversight but not the bailout itself. You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.
We know who to blame. This is not this government's fault. This is Wall Street's fault, and the previous administrations, and all the Republican neo-cons who have deregulated everything they could get their hands on over the past thirty years.
You can't argue worth a damn, you can't cite facts, you repeat lies, and you try to claim one side is as evil as the other. Simply not true. Yeah, the problem you outline is real and both parties have been infiltrated by greedy sociopathic fascists, but one side is owned by those cocksuckers, while the other side is just influenced by them. Get some perspective and stop making outrageous claims that I, personally, had a huge hand in ruining this country. That is the losing argument of a self-righteous prick. So fuck off, tmosley, you libertarian fuckwit.
Thanks, but you DO know that a typical 'slightly left of center' Dutch perspective is about the same as 'flaming red commie leftist' over here, right? *Sigh*
Hahaha, oh, good one. "It was fannie and freddie what done it, not me!" Typical right wing revisionism. The right wing is an echo chamber full of liars repeating and amplifying each other's lies. You have gotten so far out of touch with the mainstream, it isn't even good propaganda anymore. The average person just assumes Republicans are lying.
What, exactly, were the cajoling and encouragement that precipitated Bush's Depression? Find me some actual fucking policy, some examples, anything, if you can. But you won't. Because it's all a lie, and fannie and freddie had very, very little to do with this Wall Street crony capitalism induced nightmare. It was deregulation of the financial industry and the repackaging and reselling of derivatives, credit default swaps, and other arcane and newly invented financial instruments that did it. That and the idiotic real estate speculation by the rich buying up investment properties.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can always quote your opponent. Also, anything you write or say has copyright. You don't need to file for it in America, it is automatic. But copyright does not stop fair use, such as quoting for critique, or parody. Free speech should not trump copyright, if you believe in the founders ideals of promoting the arts and sciences, except in the ways already noted.
I read it, now explain to us how Free Speech trumps copyright protection, or STFU.
Show me the executive order you speak of.
Democrats license all music they use, as is required by the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
You mean this? Look who introduced it and how much support it had from both parties, and explain why you blame Clinton for it.
Yes, I, along with the majority of Americans, see Wall Street as the bad guys.
Before I write a possibly longer post, are you really, REALLY saying that "Democrats don't infringe copyright" ?
They have not infringed artists copyrights for use in political ads any time in recent memory.
If you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. Your lack of evidence does not make a very good case, that's the simple fact that I am pointing out. History has taught me to deeply distrust people who make claims with no evidence.
As I said, read the Constitution if you are confused.
Copyright is part of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Copyright does not infringe on free speech. You can say whatever you like without having to use someone else's art to do so.
What first set of rules were broken? There were no rules, that's the point. There was no such thing as credit default swaps, or even derivatives, before the 1990s.
There are no contradictions, read the Constitution. You can say whatever you like without having to quote someone else to do it. Do you really think freedom of speech trumps copyright? That's laughably stupid. I could legally distribute Avatar by tacking on 'Republicans Suck!' at the end. Please engage your brain before making remarks that, with a moment's thought, you would realize are ludicrous.
I'm not here to fucking mollycoddle idiots with an agenda and a sack of lies. If you don't like it, fuck you in your free speech hole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_copyright_law
or, alternatively, read the constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
Uh, wrong. You don't understand how copyright works. Artists maintain control over their works and can not be forced to distribute licenses. Please, though, cite a source showing how anyone can play anything they like without the artists' consent.
Weird Al is protected because his works are clearly parody, but even so he does the right thing and seeks permission. Unlike the Republicans you are trying, and failing, to defend.
Take that up with your congrewsscritter, but good luck getting it changed, it would require a constitutional ammendment.
Democrats don't infringe copyright, plain and simple. If they ever had, the Republicans would make hay over it, but they haven't so, your attribution is false.
Laughable ignorance on your part. Copyright is a Constitutional right, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
Can I PLEASE get some better debating opponents? This is like shooting moronic right wing fish in a barrel.
Please explain how the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans. Go ahead, I'll wait. See, the thing the right wing liars forget, is that all this information is out there and easily available on the Internet, so the lies are incredibly easy to refute.
The CRA does not give the government powers to force banks to make bad loans, sorry to burst your bubble.
I am here to keep you honest, too. And I'm doing a far better job of it than you are, my friend. You won't win in that regard, because you see, I already keep myself honest, while you, evidently, do not. I do not live in a right wing echo chamber where bald faced lies are amplified and repeated until the entire cult thinks that black is white.
Talking points? I'm sorry, I don't do talking points. Was the phrase 'fat cats' on some kind of list you could point to as official 'talking points?'
Assign blame to the blame-worthy and we won't have a problem. Blame the wrong people, and I'll continue to correct you. If government is at all to blame, it is Bush and the Republicans, and it's only political theater if you disagree with it. The Republicans like to pretend to populism, but financial reform is a popular issue, people support it, but the Republicans can't, for two reasons: 1.) they can't let Obama have any more wins, period. The more wins he racks up, the less electable any of them are. 2.) Republicans are in the pockets of big business, that is their constituency. They will not betray them.
As for Glass-Steagall and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley repeal, lets look at the voting breakdown, shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png Yeah, what were you saying again? Just as an aside, I have to say thank you, personally, for letting me mop the floor with you in debates again and again, it really makes my day. It's almost as though you enjoy being my bitch in public.
Bullshit, you can't use copyrighted material in a political ad or speech without paying for it. Period.
All the rest of your post is a similar worthless obfuscation and appeal to emotion. If you want to make outrageous contra-factual claims, back them up with, oh I don't know, the relevant passages from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Political speech enjoys higher levels of protection, but misuse of copyrighted works is not a free speech issue. It is a, oh what's the word, copyright issue. You do understand that, in order to work at all, copyright trumps free speech, except in limited circumstances like fair use and parody.
Republicans have a long, sordid history of using music without permissions, they especially love to use songs from artists who are not Republicans. Google 'republicans stealing music.'
This was the first page that came up: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77309/a_pattern_of_republicans_stealing_music_from_bands_who_don't_like_them/
Here's another: http://www.theinsider.com/news/1264982_Can_the_Republicans_Stop_Stealing_Everybody_s_Music
And another: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-caught-stealing-democratic-music
It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.
No, most Americans still rightly blame the fat cats on Wall Street for this mess. It's not as if the government was forcing banks to make bad loans, despite what certain professional liars may have told you. Sure, the government could have done more to regulate the ridiculous financial instruments invented in the last ten years or so, but obviously under Bush any kind of regulation was out of the question. Obama did carry on Bush's lame bailout policies, but he also added more oversight, despite Republicans screaming 'socialism' about the oversight but not the bailout itself. You will also note the Democrats in congress attempting to bring reform to the financial sector, but being blocked by Republicans, who are not only filibustering any bill, they are filibuster the motion to even debate the bill.
We know who to blame. This is not this government's fault. This is Wall Street's fault, and the previous administrations, and all the Republican neo-cons who have deregulated everything they could get their hands on over the past thirty years.
You can't argue worth a damn, you can't cite facts, you repeat lies, and you try to claim one side is as evil as the other. Simply not true. Yeah, the problem you outline is real and both parties have been infiltrated by greedy sociopathic fascists, but one side is owned by those cocksuckers, while the other side is just influenced by them. Get some perspective and stop making outrageous claims that I, personally, had a huge hand in ruining this country. That is the losing argument of a self-righteous prick. So fuck off, tmosley, you libertarian fuckwit.
Thanks, but you DO know that a typical 'slightly left of center' Dutch perspective is about the same as 'flaming red commie leftist' over here, right? *Sigh*
Hahaha, oh, good one. "It was fannie and freddie what done it, not me!" Typical right wing revisionism. The right wing is an echo chamber full of liars repeating and amplifying each other's lies. You have gotten so far out of touch with the mainstream, it isn't even good propaganda anymore. The average person just assumes Republicans are lying.
What, exactly, were the cajoling and encouragement that precipitated Bush's Depression? Find me some actual fucking policy, some examples, anything, if you can. But you won't. Because it's all a lie, and fannie and freddie had very, very little to do with this Wall Street crony capitalism induced nightmare. It was deregulation of the financial industry and the repackaging and reselling of derivatives, credit default swaps, and other arcane and newly invented financial instruments that did it. That and the idiotic real estate speculation by the rich buying up investment properties.