Is it piracy if you NEVER would have bought it to begin with If it is free i might download it but at $30 to $50 i would NEVER even think of buying it If there was NO loss of cash is it piracy
Is it piracy if you board another ship at sea while hoisting the jolly roger, wearing a wooden leg, sporting a parrot on one shoulder and demanding chests full of gold doubloons? Is it piracy if they don't have any doubloons? Is it piracy if you then ravish their women? What if you don't exactly ravish them, but merely rip their bodices, accidentally exposing their heaving bosoms? How fast must a bosom be moving in order to be considered "heaving?"
Cool, so I can break into your website and deface it? Start a smear campaign against you claiming you are an ex Nazi who likes having sex with dead relatives? Break into your online bank account and steal your money? Admit it, you want at least some government regulation of the Internet. Unless, I don't know, maybe you want a lawless old west where groups like Anonymous can wreak havoc unmolested by evil government types.
So you are saying that if I do not debate the wingnut claiming the sky is fuchsia, then I have lost, and others will believe him when he says the sky is fuchsia?
But all that is beside the point, as I and other have pointed out that Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC, and there are a ton of right wing commentators on many networks and other media. The Fox left wingers, on the other hand, are widely recognized to be the actual incarnation of a straw man, hired as sidekicks for their right wing hosts to beat up on.
As usual, sloppy argumentation and fantastical assumptions prove the downfall of an overconfident right winger, who has made himself look the idiot in the process. Thanks for that, I always appreciate a good laugh.
When someone says the sky is always bright fuchsia, do you make a scientific argument that they are incorrect, or do you call them a moron and move on?
Fox hires weak, ineffectual and dumb faux liberals to act as punching bags for their conservative hosts. MSNBC, on the other hand, hires people like Joe Scarborough, and then lets him veto who can come on Kieth and Rachel's shows.
You will find conservatives on all other networks, just not ultra right fascist wing nuts like you will find at Fox. Just because they are left of you does not make them left wing.
No, because they are apt comparisons, and everyone left and right was making them. Can you make the sad trombone noise? The sad trombone goes WAH Wah waaaaaahhh because your lame example makes the sad trombone very, very sad.
Mika is Joe's left wing punching bag. She's a nothing. So she bragged about working with the white house. She is a puppet of Right Wing host Joe Scarborough. Whatever she does, she does with his approval. Bad example, especially considering that Joe, as the lone right winger, hired by his friend and right winger, the manager of MSNBC, has VETO POWER over ALL guests that come on MSNBC. Even on Rachel and Kieth's shows.
Tim Russert, as you admit, is dead, and has not been replaced with a similar liberal. Not that he was any kind of ultra lefty, he was pretty center of the road by any standards.
Chuck Todd is on NBC, not MSNBC. You could try to use him as an example of how NBC is left wing, but not MSNBC. Bad example.
GE is a defense contractor and would stand to make at least as much with the Republicans in power. GE donates sixty/forty. They give sixty to the front runner and forty to the challenger, regardless of party affiliation.
You had to stretch pretty far to find these weak-sauce examples. Looks like you've been made the fool here.
Yes, he does have his own show, because MSNBC's manager is far right. And Scarborough gets to dictate who can and who can not come on MSNBC. Yes, the lone right winger on MSNBC has veto powers over Rachel Maddow and Kith Olberman's guest choices.
Not even close. MSNBC has not directly contributed to the DNC, while Fox has given millions directly to the RNC. No Democratic former politicians work for MSNBC, while several Republican former politicians work for Fox.
How is this "fear mongering?" Is it claiming something untrue in order to frighten? Seriously, list the other, greater threats. How many are there? Five? Ten? If it's in that range, I'd say the comment is perfectly valid. It does not claim Iran is the greatest threat, merely one of them. And it is not making outlandish claims regarding either the threat or the proposed solution.
My God, you mean there are idiots on the left as well? Shocking. Okay, well, it actually is shocking that anyone on the left could think Colbert was on the right. I mean, a lefty would have to be a whole lot dumber than his right wing counterpart to think that.
I don't know, I think the Daily show, like any, has its ups and downs. Recently it has come back 'up' after a period of not being very funny. I don't think much of the ups or downs has anything to do with Stewart being angry and bitter. He is a little angry at the laziness of the media, but you don't see that in the show much, only in interviews.
Why would he be angry and bitter? I mean, what do you think he is angry and bitter about? If you see it, you must have some clue as to its source and direction, right?
I said "fairly non partisan." Stewart is more likely to mock whoever is in power, while Colbert mocks the right by mocking the left in the right's voice.
Quick question, simple question. When has Obama descended into fear mongering? Please, I'd love a quote, something definitive to point to as an example of his fear mongering. Anything will do, but it has to be in context.
You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.
I think not finding the Daily Show or Stephen Colbert funny says a lot more about the critic than it says about Stewert, Colbert, or their writers. I'm not saying what it says about the critic, but it sure says something. Something having to do with broomsticks and bodily orifices.
I won't see it, so I guess we'll never know. I also do not intend to consume dog shit, or watch high powered lasers with my remaining good eye. It is not the fact that this is merely a remake of Pocahantas that offends me, it is the actual message of the film. Poor benighted natives can not even worship their own deity correctly without the help of the noble white man. Yeah, that's an enlightening premise.
Oh no, someone on the Internet doesn't like something you like! Why, that must mean that your whole life is a lie unless you can convince everyone that that person is an arrogant asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it piracy if you NEVER would have bought it to begin with
If it is free i might download it but at $30 to $50 i would NEVER even think of buying it
If there was NO loss of cash is it piracy
Is it piracy if you board another ship at sea while hoisting the jolly roger, wearing a wooden leg, sporting a parrot on one shoulder and demanding chests full of gold doubloons?
Is it piracy if they don't have any doubloons?
Is it piracy if you then ravish their women? What if you don't exactly ravish them, but merely rip their bodices, accidentally exposing their heaving bosoms?
How fast must a bosom be moving in order to be considered "heaving?"
Cool, so I can break into your website and deface it? Start a smear campaign against you claiming you are an ex Nazi who likes having sex with dead relatives? Break into your online bank account and steal your money? Admit it, you want at least some government regulation of the Internet. Unless, I don't know, maybe you want a lawless old west where groups like Anonymous can wreak havoc unmolested by evil government types.
So you are saying that if I do not debate the wingnut claiming the sky is fuchsia, then I have lost, and others will believe him when he says the sky is fuchsia?
But all that is beside the point, as I and other have pointed out that Joe Scarborough is on MSNBC, and there are a ton of right wing commentators on many networks and other media. The Fox left wingers, on the other hand, are widely recognized to be the actual incarnation of a straw man, hired as sidekicks for their right wing hosts to beat up on.
As usual, sloppy argumentation and fantastical assumptions prove the downfall of an overconfident right winger, who has made himself look the idiot in the process. Thanks for that, I always appreciate a good laugh.
When someone says the sky is always bright fuchsia, do you make a scientific argument that they are incorrect, or do you call them a moron and move on?
Fox hires weak, ineffectual and dumb faux liberals to act as punching bags for their conservative hosts. MSNBC, on the other hand, hires people like Joe Scarborough, and then lets him veto who can come on Kieth and Rachel's shows.
You will find conservatives on all other networks, just not ultra right fascist wing nuts like you will find at Fox. Just because they are left of you does not make them left wing.
No, because they are apt comparisons, and everyone left and right was making them. Can you make the sad trombone noise? The sad trombone goes WAH Wah waaaaaahhh because your lame example makes the sad trombone very, very sad.
Mika is Joe's left wing punching bag. She's a nothing. So she bragged about working with the white house. She is a puppet of Right Wing host Joe Scarborough. Whatever she does, she does with his approval. Bad example, especially considering that Joe, as the lone right winger, hired by his friend and right winger, the manager of MSNBC, has VETO POWER over ALL guests that come on MSNBC. Even on Rachel and Kieth's shows.
Tim Russert, as you admit, is dead, and has not been replaced with a similar liberal. Not that he was any kind of ultra lefty, he was pretty center of the road by any standards.
Chuck Todd is on NBC, not MSNBC. You could try to use him as an example of how NBC is left wing, but not MSNBC. Bad example.
GE is a defense contractor and would stand to make at least as much with the Republicans in power. GE donates sixty/forty. They give sixty to the front runner and forty to the challenger, regardless of party affiliation.
You had to stretch pretty far to find these weak-sauce examples. Looks like you've been made the fool here.
Yes, he does have his own show, because MSNBC's manager is far right. And Scarborough gets to dictate who can and who can not come on MSNBC. Yes, the lone right winger on MSNBC has veto powers over Rachel Maddow and Kith Olberman's guest choices.
How much has Rupert given to Democrats? Zip, zero, zilch, nada, nothing. But thanks for the WHARGRBL, your anger amuses me.
So GE splitting its donations sixty/forty is the same thing as Fox News splitting things 100/0?
No.
Take the stick out of your ass and get a sense of humor.
Besides admitting that I am correct, are you also implying that ABC is left wing?
Not even close. MSNBC has not directly contributed to the DNC, while Fox has given millions directly to the RNC. No Democratic former politicians work for MSNBC, while several Republican former politicians work for Fox.
There is nothing like Fox News on the left.
How is this "fear mongering?" Is it claiming something untrue in order to frighten? Seriously, list the other, greater threats. How many are there? Five? Ten? If it's in that range, I'd say the comment is perfectly valid. It does not claim Iran is the greatest threat, merely one of them. And it is not making outlandish claims regarding either the threat or the proposed solution.
You fail.
What makes you think Fox provides "news?" It is the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
My God, you mean there are idiots on the left as well? Shocking. Okay, well, it actually is shocking that anyone on the left could think Colbert was on the right. I mean, a lefty would have to be a whole lot dumber than his right wing counterpart to think that.
HAha, you got "Do as I say or the economy will collapse" from that?!? My god. You are a fucking retard.
I don't know, I think the Daily show, like any, has its ups and downs. Recently it has come back 'up' after a period of not being very funny. I don't think much of the ups or downs has anything to do with Stewart being angry and bitter. He is a little angry at the laziness of the media, but you don't see that in the show much, only in interviews.
Why would he be angry and bitter? I mean, what do you think he is angry and bitter about? If you see it, you must have some clue as to its source and direction, right?
I said "fairly non partisan." Stewart is more likely to mock whoever is in power, while Colbert mocks the right by mocking the left in the right's voice.
Quotes? Please, show me the fear mongering.
Quick question, simple question. When has Obama descended into fear mongering? Please, I'd love a quote, something definitive to point to as an example of his fear mongering. Anything will do, but it has to be in context.
You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.
I think not finding the Daily Show or Stephen Colbert funny says a lot more about the critic than it says about Stewert, Colbert, or their writers. I'm not saying what it says about the critic, but it sure says something. Something having to do with broomsticks and bodily orifices.
I won't see it, so I guess we'll never know. I also do not intend to consume dog shit, or watch high powered lasers with my remaining good eye. It is not the fact that this is merely a remake of Pocahantas that offends me, it is the actual message of the film. Poor benighted natives can not even worship their own deity correctly without the help of the noble white man. Yeah, that's an enlightening premise.
Oh no, someone on the Internet doesn't like something you like! Why, that must mean that your whole life is a lie unless you can convince everyone that that person is an arrogant asshole.